Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Energy Policy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased to be able to open this debate on energy policy following the Kyoto summit. I do so as part of an effective parliamentary conspiracy known as the GLOBE group, which stands for Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment, which has members in all Parliaments in Europe and, indeed, in many Parliaments throughout the world. We view effective lobbying in national Parliaments as part of our work, but also aim to ensure that major events such as the Kyoto conference are followed by effective parliamentary action, so that all national Governments keep to their targets.
It could not be more appropriate that we are debating this issue today because, tomorrow, the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry will sit before the Environmental Audit Committee, which will question him at some length about the methods by which the Government will carry out the policies that were agreed at Kyoto. That is a step forward: this Parliament now has a Select Committee where such questions can be raised.
In the past, environmental policies were entirely linked to the Department of the Environment, which was obviously heavily dominated by local government interests. Because of that domination, environmental matters tended to take a back seat. It would be useful if Parliament as a whole had a specialist environment Committee—as opposed to a Committee linking other Departments—in addition to the Environmental Audit Committee. There is a strong case for that.
In June, European Union Ministers will meet in Aarhus in Denmark to discuss the continuation of environmental policies, but we must take other things into account. For example, there are headlines in all today's newspapers about the transport of plutonium waste from Georgia to Britain. That exposes the dangers of nuclear waste and nuclear reprocessing, and effectively challenges all those who believe that the nuclear option is somehow safe and environmentally sustainable, and will ensure clean energy supplies.
I do not believe that there is anything clean about nuclear waste or nuclear power. If anyone proposed that we should start a new energy source that would be dangerous for more than 1,000 years, people would think that they were completely mad. It is time that we seriously challenged the whole nuclear argument.
This Friday, the House has the opportunity to complete the stages in this place of the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill, which has been through Committee. It is a great tribute to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) that it has got that far. I just hope that certain members of the Conservative parliamentary party do not go on yet another outing of trying to destroy an environmental Bill, as they have unfortunately tried to do on various other occasions. The Energy Efficiency Bill is also coming up this Friday. It is important that the House puts together all those issues, so that we have joined-up thinking and joined-up actions in improving our environment.
In many ways, the Kyoto conference was a great milestone in this planet's history. Before Rio, many people throughout the world had been arguing for a more sustainable attitude towards our environment, energy consumption and energy production, but it had not come together. The Rio summit was a major turning point. Likewise, the New York meeting and Kyoto were a major step forward in recognising the limits to growth and to what we can do to our environment and planet, and placed requirements on each country to carry out the work.
However, the background to Kyoto was raging fires throughout south Asia, which were caused partly by drought, but partly because people were seeking to clear forests by burning them down. The news now is that, despite all the campaigning by so many people throughout the world over the past 20 years, the rate of destruction of that huge carbon sink otherwise known as the beautiful Amazon rain forest is proceeding at an even faster rate than ever before. There is no room for complacency in energy policy or environmental protection matters.
The world might look with great hope to Kyoto, post-Rio and all that goes with that, but all Governments appear to be accepting that there is an uncontrollable global economy and that growth is the order of the day. The environmental damage done by excessive transportation, excessive destruction of forests and excessive use of fossil fuels appears to be viewed as the necessary consequence of the eternal growth theory. Therefore, humankind has a long way to go in trying to control what it does to this planet, as, at present, it is merely trying to mitigate the effects on the globe of a free-market economy. Those issues must be brought together.
Having said that, I found the British Government's approach to Kyoto very welcome, especially as they sought a large reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The result—an 8 per cent. agreement—was not good enough; much better could have been achieved. I do not blame the British Government's representatives at the conference, but I am laying some blame on the United States, which is the biggest consumer of energy and the biggest global polluter. Many of the right-wing think tanks in the USA say, "The problem is caused by the third world", but the reality is that every American consumes 10 times as much energy as every person in Bangladesh, south Asia or China. That is the reality of what is happening to this planet. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, he will tell us what steps the Government intend to take to cut CO2 emissions.
The global economy is having disastrous effects on the environment—for example, the destruction of the rain forests and the fires in south Asia. However, we can also identify and measure global warming. I am aware that there is a scientific argument, of sorts, that there are


normal climatic variations and changes anyway and that we just happen to be moving into a warmer period. The truth is that the speed with which global temperatures have risen over the past 15 years is astronomical. The link with the large-scale and increasing burning of fossil fuels around the world suggests that we are doing something dramatic, dangerous and possibly irreversible to our climate. That must be reckoned with.
The many surveys carried out in the Antarctic allow us to measure the degree of pollution throughout the globe. We can date and almost time where the pollution comes from and see what we are doing to the climate. We can also look at the way in which ice caps are melting in the northern and southern hemispheres. Traditionally, the northern hemisphere ice caps have been melting while the southern hemisphere ice caps have been expanding—now they are both retreating, so there is bound to be a rise in global sea levels. That is the consequence of not doing anything.
Although Kyoto was an important step forward, other measures need to be taken. After the election last May, the Government correctly presented themselves as concerned with environmental policies. They reflected what a large number of ordinary people thought, because people recognise what is being done to their environment. Those concerned with protecting the environment live not just in rural communities; they are not only the people trying, rightly, to preserve woods, forests, hedgerows and habitat vegetations—protecting the environment is just as much a concern to people growing up in council estates in inner London or anywhere else. They want a decent environment and clean air to breathe. That is why our energy policies matter.
I am an active member—indeed the chair—of my local Agenda 21 group in Islington. The effort made by so many ordinary people is quite moving. They are desperate for a better world and a better environment to leave to future generations. That is a fairly new phenomenon in politics throughout the world, but especially in this country.
We need to make a number of important changes in policy. Currently, our primary sources of energy are coal, oil and, to a more limited extent, hydro and other forms of renewable energy. Oil prices, if not at an all-time low, are certainly somewhere near that. Even with North sea oil, which is expensive to produce, there is still a profit of about $10 a barrel between production costs and sale prices, despite the current low oil prices. Oil companies are busy stocking up huge amounts of oil, either in large storage spaces or by keeping it under the ground, having gained prospecting licences.
On the figures produced by Greenpeace—I agree with that organisation, as do many others—the maximum amount of carbon that we can burn on our planet without causing major climatic changes is 225 gigatonnes. The amount in storage or available for exploration is far greater than that. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, will he tell us the rationale behind continuing to grant exploration licences in the north Atlantic, knowing full well the environmental damage that will be done? It is unsustainable, in world terms, to start a whole new round of oil exploration when we should be looking towards sustainable energy sources rather than fossil fuel sources. We must protect the environment.
The world managed to change course on the Antarctic. I have been in the House long enough to see the issue go full circle, from the Antarctic being a place of scientific exploration, to being a place of mineral exploration, and then a place of preservation of the natural environment and prevention of any mineral exploration and exploitation—of the Antarctic shelf itself, but not of the sea around it, unfortunately. Surely we can do the same with the north Atlantic licences that the Government are considering granting. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will give us some hope that the Government will not grant those licences.
My hon. Friend may know that I have tabled a number of questions to the Foreign Office about Rockall and whether Britain actually has the right to grant licences for the sea surrounding Rockall. It is not clear who owns Rockall. Would it not be better to reach an international agreement to preserve that pristine stretch of ocean from exploration and all the damage that goes with it? It should be used as a signal, a pressure and a catalyst for moving towards a more sustainable energy policy.
Britain does not do very well in the new European renewable energy league. In 1990, 0.5 per cent. of our energy came from renewable resources. By 1995, that had risen to the fantastic amount of 0.7 per cent. I suppose people could argue that that is a huge increase, but it is meaningless because it is growth from a very low base. Every other country in Europe does considerably better, the best being Sweden with 25.4 per cent. Much lower down, even France manages 7 per cent. Germany is rather low with less than 2 per cent. The country nearest to us in the league is Belgium, with 1 per cent. There is no excuse for Britain's position, other than the attitude of previous Governments and, within that, attitudes towards Government spending, investment and tax regimes.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister recognises that enormous strides could be made. Indeed, I know that he wants to promote greater use of solar, wind-powered and wave-powered energy and much less reliance on fossil fuels and all the damage that comes with them.
We must also consider the question of energy conservation. Energy requirements are dictated by industry, by transport and heating needs and so on, but we must bear in mind the fact that an initial investment means savings in the long run. About half my constituents live in local authority or housing association accommodation. Most of them complain to me about high heating bills, poor insulation and generally poor living conditions. Indeed, many people living in private accommodation say exactly the same.
Every time we neglect to install roof insulation, cavity walls or a more efficient form of heating, we might save a little on the construction cost of a house, but, in the long run, we are piling huge costs on the people who live in that house and we are doing enormous damage to the environment. A conservation policy is beneficial to everyone even though the initial cost is considerably higher.
In this country, 8 million people suffer from some energy deficiency, in that they are unable to heat their homes or keep themselves warm. Because of the inadequate heating in so many houses, there are 30,000 more deaths in winter than in summer, a fact which appears to be related to the conditions in which people live. Clearly, the attempts made by some hon. Members


to introduce private Members' Bills relating to energy efficiency or heating conservation—we shall be debating such a Bill on Friday—are very important.
It is essential that the toughest possible energy conservation requirements are imposed for all new buildings. We must recognise that investing now in good-quality insulation and efficient heating systems means in the long run a saving not only to the individual but to the environment. Of course, if one marries that notion to the free market, there is a conflict between the needs of the environment and those of the gas and electricity companies, whose sole motive is to encourage greater consumption.
I know that several hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, so I move on to my final point, on transport. Transport is a huge but inefficient consumer of energy and is the single biggest source of pollution in most cities around the world. If one has a mind to do such things, one has only to go to the top of Canary Wharf tower to see the effect of transport pollution. There is very little industry left in London to cause pollution, but from the top of the tower one can see a pollution cloud or dome—it is like the millennium dome on a grander scale—stretching across central London. Most of that pollution is caused by transport, mainly cars carrying one person. It is preventable, but we must be prepared to invest more in public transport and reduce the energy consumed for transport.
On a more global note, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) made a good speech earlier this year about the concept of food miles and the amount of pollution caused by goods being dragged around the world. It is crazy that countries in central Africa, where there is a food deficiency and where many people do not eat terribly well, are being encouraged by international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, of which we are members, to grow early vegetables that are air-freighted to Europe. One can imagine the enormous pollution involved in flying early strawberries grown in Zambia to London, Frankfurt, New York or Paris. When one sees beautiful strawberries, mange-tout and so on in the supermarket, one thinks that they are clean, pollution-free vegetables, but what about the fuel that has been burnt to bring them here and the consequent damage to the environment?
I recall going to a supermarket last year in Worcester. There were millions of apple trees only half a mile from that supermarket, but the apples on sale there came from New Zealand—what a crazy world.
The constant global effort to increase export production and trade is seen as a form of growth, but it damages the environment. Ships pass each other carrying washing machines from one end of the world to the other and back again, but that can hardly be called a sustainable form of growth.
I know that the Government are keen to integrate environmental and transport policies, but it has to happen quickly, or we shall not be able to make the 8 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions agreed at Kyoto, and we shall certainly not meet the much higher targets proposed by the Government. Parliament needs to be assertive and to keep returning to the issue. If various sections of the Government are not fully apprised of the need for joined-up thinking on the environment, they need to be encouraged to be so. That is Parliament's job.
If, at the end of this century, we cannot turn things round and start to develop technologies that use the energy available from the sun, wind and water, but instead we carry on in the smokestack tradition, the damage to the planet's climate might be irreversible.
Some people say that those of us who look to a sustainable environment are backward-thinking and conservative. On the contrary; we are by no means anti-technology. We want the cutting edge of technology to be used to develop solar, wind and wave power and all the renewable and sustainable methods possible. We want to use that technology for better control systems and less polluting forms of energy use. Unless we get fully involved, we shall be losing jobs in the fossil fuel industries, as has happened already, but we shall not be gaining jobs in the sustainable industries, for which there is a huge global market. I am thinking, for example, of the production of solar panels.
There needs to be a change in attitude. Kyoto provided an opportunity for that, but if we do not recognise that poorer countries need help to develop sustainable energy, the enormous damage will continue. I hope that today's debate will be one of a series of regular debates, so that we can monitor what is happening, what the Government are doing and what pressure we can put on them.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I greatly welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on securing it. It should be seen as a plea for fewer warm words and more hard action. There has been a tremendous change, in that 10 or even five years ago, it was believed that only extremely strange people such as the hon. Members for Islington, North and for Hazel Grove supported the concept of sustainable energy, but it is now one to which Governments worldwide are committed.
I remind the House that the targets that we are discussing relate to reductions in emissions between 1990 and 2010. We are already eight years into that 20-year period, but we are still debating precisely what policies should be in place to achieve those targets. Therefore, it is not a question of our rushing the Government or of the House being impatient; rather, it is a recognition that time is passing, and passing very quickly.
I shall spend a minute or two considering what the Government have done, as opposed to what they have said, since 1 May last year. There are some bad signs, which I shall enumerate, but there are also some good ones. We need to examine not only what the Government say but what they do and the impact of that.
The Government have implemented a manifesto pledge to cut value added tax on fuel. Of course, that helps the poor, and we understand and support that. However, we need to recognise that it will increase fuel consumption and, therefore, carbon dioxide emissions.
There has been a somewhat grudging cut in VAT on energy conservation materials. The Government have done a brilliant job of persuading the public, but they have provided only a limited concession that may allow energy conservation materials to be installed in 40,000 homes, when 8 million homes have poor insulation and bad energy conservation.
I shall not say too much about the Government's policy on coal, as I am sure that others will want to speak about that. However, I have made a point before of drawing


attention to developments in respect of our non-fossil fuel obligations and the fact that we now have legislation in place that, remarkably and paradoxically, allows a levy to be placed on renewable energy generators as well as those using fossil fuel.
The Government promised us a Green Book that would be produced alongside the Red Book. Not only would it list all the financial implications of the Budget and the Finance Bill, but it would give us a clear signal as to their environmental and green impact. I asked parliamentary questions about that and was assured that the Green Book was on page 73 of the Red Book. It consists of one page listing 15 items and their environmental impact. Of those 15 items, three are for consultation and not for implementation and will have no environmental impact this year. Two of the items show a small increase in carbon dioxide emissions and only three of the remaining 10 show quantified reductions. Therefore, despite some bold, brave and welcome words about the direction of Government policy and the integration of all Government policies into environmental concerns, the Green Book has become a green page and only three of the 15 policies listed on it will provide any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Over the past few months, I have been asking about energy consumption by the Government, as I have been trying to establish how much energy Government Departments use. I asked how much vehicle mileage was covered by Government employees, but the information was not available. I asked how much energy was being consumed by Government buildings and fixed assets in the United Kingdom. Some Departments have been very helpful and have provided figures, but others have said that the information is not available within the scope of parliamentary questions.

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): It strikes me as ironic that we meet every day in a darkened room where we have the lights on to have our debates.

Mr. Stunell: I thank the Minister for that intervention and I agree with him. As hon. Members are not allowed to read their speeches, having the lights on should not be necessary, except for Front-Bench speeches.
If Government Departments do not know how much energy they are consuming, how will they know whether they have reduced energy consumption by 8 per cent., 10 per cent. or 20 per cent.—20 per cent. of what and from when? We need to recognise that it is not just a matter of slogans and targets; it is about real plans and real progress if we are to achieve what we all want.
I could also mention the Government's hesitant approach to the European Union White Paper on renewables. I discussed the issue with the Minister in the European Standing Committee, and I understood the political logic of what he said. However, the hon. Member for Islington, North was right to draw attention to the United Kingdom's poor record in respect of renewable energy.
Belgium's percentage of renewables is 40 per cent. greater than ours. When people hear the figures for Sweden, they say that it has rivers and mountains and not

very many people and that there are many reasons why Sweden might have an entirely different energy budget from ours, but Belgium is not exactly dominated by mountains.

Mr. Battle: It is appreciated that although the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the European Standing Committee, he took an interest in it, but he will recall that we debated the fact that Belgium burns all its municipal waste, which raises other environmental issues. Therefore, I remind him that the matter is not quite as simplistic as he appears to suggest.

Mr. Stunell: I welcome the Minister's intervention. He is quite right that the issue is not as simplistic as it seems for the pros or the antis. I understand that he is working in a complex political and economic environment, and I would be the last person to underestimate that.
I do not know what the Minister would say about Ireland, where the percentage of renewables is three times higher than ours. Perhaps there is a particular reason for that, but we need to examine the issue and understand why the United Kingdom is at the bottom of the pile and not at the top.
There are opportunities for the United Kingdom to raise its percentage of renewables without the conflict implied in the Minister's intervention in respect of waste incineration, for example. During the Easter break, I visited the Centre for Alternative Technology and, on behalf of the Minister, I received praise for the Government's investment in the photovoltaic installation there. There are opportunities, but we are not exploiting them.
I expect that the Minister would be a little indignant if I did not mention the good signs. There is clearly wide public acceptance of the need for action, and the Government are being offered a great deal of good will. Their warm words and investment in respect of photovoltaics or renewable energy installations at Ford, for example, are widely welcomed. There are opportunities, and the public are ready to accept them.
Returning briefly to the Government's policy on coal, I welcome the fact that they have now backtracked somewhat on their ban on the installation of gas generators and have lowered the threshold at which it applies. That is common sense, but it underlines the fact that there is much work still to be done before we can be said to have a genuine energy policy for the United Kingdom. It ought to be easy to get started, and it is good that the Government have given a fair wind to the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill, the Waste Minimisation Bill, the Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill and the Energy Efficiency Bill, but they are all private Members' Bills. We need strong, positive, Government-directed action.
My plea is twofold. First, will the Government tell us what their energy policy is? It has to be integrated with the environmental policy issues that we are discussing and with fiscal and economic policy, but until that foundation is laid, publicly discussed and agreed, the conduct of the entire debate is extremely difficult. Secondly, I make a far wider plea: we need to get away from the impression that growth, wealth and prosperity can be purchased only at the expense of high energy use and low environmental conditions for the work force and the general population. 


What should be done next? Liberal Democrats were disappointed that the Budget did not contain a bigger commitment to public transport. Although the figures that were announced were high, careful reading of the Red Book shows that they have to be divided by four, as they apply over four years.
We were disappointed that the changes to vehicle excise duty for next year will not be implemented this year. It is worth noting that, in the European Union, the car fleets with the smallest engine sizes are in Italy and Denmark, which seems to be connected to the fact that the taxation of vehicles in those countries is based on mileage and fuel consumption rather than on a flat-rate tax such as vehicle excise duty. By contrast, the car fleet engine size in the United Kingdom has increased throughout the 1980s and 1990s. I ask the Minister to make those points as clearly as possible—wearing both his Department of Trade and Industry and his energy hats—to his ministerial colleagues.
Growth, wealth and prosperity are often thought to conflict with an environmental policy. Countries that have high standards of living, high gross domestic product and, indeed, high energy costs are among the most prosperous, but one need only look at Germany and—perhaps through half-closed eyes at the moment—Japan to see that it would be wrong to claim a connection between a strong environmental policy and a weak economy with low prosperity.
Will the Minister say plainly and clearly what the Government's energy policy is? Do the targets for the United Kingdom that were announced before Kyoto still obtain? Are the Government committed to investment in renewable energy sources and to conservation and the promotion of energy efficiency? He should understand that a strong message is coming from both sides of the House: we want the Government to be positive, purposeful and prompt in tackling the issue.

Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on securing this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to it. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the international role he has taken in recent months to make Governments across the world accept their responsibilities to respond to climate change and to reduce emissions.
It is extremely interesting that we are having this debate this week, not only because of last night's news about an unfortunate incident in the nuclear industry or because of the consideration of the Finance Bill, in which the effect of green taxation on emissions has been a theme, but because on Friday, we shall debate a series of private Members' Bills concerned with energy efficiency, each of which could make a small contribution to our achievement of the Kyoto targets.
My message to Opposition Front Benchers is not to block the progress of those Bills. An unfortunate trend in recent weeks has been that a particular Conservative Member has tried to block every private Member's Bill, regardless of its merits. I hope that the Opposition will take cognisance of the fact that this Friday is an important day for those Bills.
In recent months, as public awareness of the implications of the Kyoto conference has increased, the nuclear industry has attempted to assume a new role

and to project itself as the answer to all our CO2 emission and climate change problems. There is no doubt that nuclear power has a role to play in a balanced energy policy; there can be no dispute about the fact that nuclear energy does not add to CO2 emissions. However, we would be naive—and do the public a great disservice—if we accepted that nuclear energy was the answer to Kyoto, for the simple reason that the nuclear industry has tried to sweep under the carpet the fundamental problem of nuclear waste. Until there is a safe, secure and scientifically accepted solution—I do not rule one out—to the problem of safeguarding the increasing storage of nuclear waste, I do not believe that nuclear power is the way forward.

Mr. David Heath: Some years ago, I had some involvement in the fight to prevent the pressurised water reactor from being built at Hinckly C. I know that many of my constituents are concerned that the Government have not yet made it clear whether there is a moratorium on new nuclear power installations. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Minister today made a clear statement on the Government's intentions on new nuclear installations?

Mr. Chaytor: That is one of the points that I was going to make, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on it in his response.
Last night's incident was significant. The disclosure of the secret deal with the Georgian Government to reprocess 5 kg of uranium at Dounreay will serve to reignite public awareness of the dangers of nuclear power, particularly the storage of waste and the transport of waste for reprocessing.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that the time has come for the Government to call in and give their view on the British Nuclear Fuels application to establish a commercial facility at Sellafield for the production of mixed oxide fuel? The deal between Dounreay and Georgia is the tip of the iceberg of what is being proposed in the British nuclear industry—BNFL wants to establish a fully fledged commercial facility to reprocess waste from across the world. The 5 kg of uranium is a drop in the ocean in terms of the total amount of nuclear waste that could come to Britain to be reprocessed. It is critical that the Government intervene and take a special interest in the matter.
I think that I am right in saying that transport creates about 25 per cent. of our total CO2 emissions. Public opinion has shifted considerably in the past five years, and there is now a general understanding that we cannot sustain our chronic dependency on the private motor car, and that we must greatly improve public transport and pursue a more balanced and mixed transport policy—We all look forward to the White Paper on integrated transport which will be published shortly.
It cannot be stressed often enough that the Government's responsibility is to use the tax system to engineer the shift away from the dominance of the private car and to encourage the use of public transport and more walking and cycling, as well as to encourage people to question whether their journeys are strictly necessary. The Budget contained important steps towards a green taxation policy, but those steps were tentative, and I hope that, in the coming months, the Government will pursue the agenda with greater confidence, and that the next Budget will introduce a more positive form of green taxation.
We welcome the initial changes to vehicle excise duty, the continuation of the fuel escalator and the action proposed on company cars, but other things can be done. Significantly, the motoring public now accept the annual price rise in petrol. Perhaps the Government are a little behind what the general public are prepared to accept. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will discuss that with his colleagues, and that a much stronger green taxation policy will emerge.
We must not only shift the balance of taxation away from labour and employers' costs to take account of pollution and waste, but consider what we should do with the resulting revenue. We cannot avoid the issue of hypothecation. I know that the Treasury has historically been opposed to it, but the time has now come when we can win public support for green taxation if we can show clearly that the extra revenue is being used for investment in public transport. That is another shift in attitude that will have to come about.
On Friday, several private Members' Bills concerned with minor improvements to energy efficiency are due to be considered. I especially commend the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation (Fifteen Year Programme) Bill, with its ambitious programme for improvements to the 8 million homes in Britain in which households still experience fuel poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, improvements will cost money in the short run, but bring enormous benefits in the long run. I welcome the fact that our Government have put enormous emphasis on long-term investment and improvements, getting away from short-term thinking, and the Bill is a perfect example of that.
The current review of the utilities regulators is crucial to energy efficiency. Since privatisation, there has been chaos in the marketplace, with many companies competing desperately to sell more and more fuel, which is obviously incompatible with our Kyoto obligations.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. The review was published a fortnight ago and was warmly welcomed precisely because we built into it those environmental considerations.

Mr. Chaytor: I am grateful for that information, and I shall make a point of studying the review carefully.
The new code for fiscal responsibility in the Budget did not have the high profile of some of the green taxation issues. The code was a welcome development by the Chancellor and established five important criteria—transparency, stability, responsibility, fairness and efficiency—but it does not mention environmental sustainability.
We should consider in the next few months whether we should add the sixth key criterion of sustainability. We cannot continue, as an industrial society, to use up resources as we have in the past 150 years. One way in which to draw attention to that fact and to concentrate the minds of the public and the Government on it is to build into the very structure and principles of taxation the concept of environmental sustainability.
We need to consider the limits of economic growth. It has been our society's basic assumption for 100 years or more that, through the application of technology and

the plundering of natural resources, we can generate economic growth that is self-sustaining and will gradually increase prosperity for everyone. In the past 10 or 20 years—in this generation—more and more people have begun to question whether that infinite expansion of economic growth and the alleged extension of prosperity for everyone can really be feasible.
There is a growing understanding of the fact that there are limits to economic growth in both social and environmental terms. That represents a major challenge, because it means that we are at a fundamental turning point in the development of our society, and a whole new set of assumptions needs to be made about how we generate prosperity and equality of opportunity. I hope that, in the next few years, Governments throughout the world will take on board the limits of economic growth.
There will soon be a major opportunity for the Government to play a leading role in pursuing the environmental agenda and ensuring that the Kyoto agreements are adhered to, when the G8 summit takes place in Birmingham in the middle of May. Our Government, and our Prime Minister, will have an important opportunity to take the lead again on the international stage.
Even though the Kyoto agreement was signed in December, the most important signatory, the United States, has yet to get the agreement passed through Congress. President Clinton and Vice-President Gore have given it their blessing, but there is still a battle to be fought in the United States Congress. The G8 summit provides the perfect opportunity to ensure that that battle is won.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on securing this debate.
Kyoto was an important success. Now the problems follow: first on ratification and then on working out emission levels, trading conditions and so forth. It is important to recognise that the cuts envisaged at Kyoto are insufficient.
It is probably impossible to prevent some damaging climate change. That will happen in any case, but we must be determined to prevent it from becoming too serious. We must consider how we can deliver international agreements for substantial cuts in CO2 emissions beyond the 8 per cent. agreed at Kyoto.
We know what the obstacle is: the United States will not agree to significant cuts, and may not even ratify Kyoto, unless developing countries are brought on board and agree to make their own reductions, or at least stabilise. Developing countries, on the other hand, say that they will not agree to fetter themselves by denying themselves development of the kind that the developed world has enjoyed as a result of its ability to burn fossil fuels.
We have to find a formula that satisfies both parties. We shall not get an agreement unless equity is built in. That brings us to the idea of contraction and convergence, which is proposed by Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute and has been adopted by the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment, or GLOBE International, of which GLOBE UK is a part.
The idea of contraction and convergence is to bring together sustainability and equity in a programme for reducing emissions by a target year on the basis of per capita rights, which become tradeable. It is compatible with the idea that came from Kyoto, but unless we set the target year for sustainability and agree the principle of equity, nothing will happen. I must re-emphasise what the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) said about the opportunities for the United Kingdom Government to take up that agenda and to use it as their platform at the G8 conference in Birmingham. It would be a great service indeed—a new, additional service—if they did that.
We all hope that the Government intend to keep to their own target of a 20 per cent. reduction by 2010. Confirmation of that this morning would be useful, as we have heard rumours that that is not the case. To deliver such a reduction and, indeed, the sort that will have to follow after that, we need action in three areas: efficiency, renewables and cutting demand.
We know what energy efficiency measures can be taken. The question is what the mechanism is that can ensure that they are. The fundamental change must be to the way in which the energy supply companies operate. They have to be persuaded to see their function not simply in terms of selling units of energy and making their profits on the basis of how much they sell, but of selling energy services. How that can be done is the question—how can their function be changed? It comes down to regulation and the function of the regulator, and the Minister has already spoken encouragingly about that.
A recent Institute for Public Policy Research study put it like this: the question is how to ensure that firms compete on total bill, rather than unit price. That same, useful study considers how regulation could achieve such a change.
We all now understand the enormous potential in renewables, and it is terribly important that we take it seriously. The organisations looking into that issue are convinced that we can achieve significant gains. Greenpeace is arguing for fossil fuel phase-out in 30 or 40 years. Whether that is realistic, I am not competent to judge, but we can certainly have major advances.
We want to hear what the Minister has to say about the European Union White Paper on renewables. The EU argues that the share of renewables in total energy demand can be increased from 6 to 12 per cent. by 2010, which would involve significant public investment, but would generate a significant number of jobs—between 500,000 and 900,000 in that period. We are, therefore, talking about an important market opportunity as well as an environmental imperative.
As has been said, the United Kingdom is at the bottom of the league in terms of the share of energy produced from renewables. The position is improving, but not as much as it should. The Government have set a 10 per cent. target of electricity from renewables by 2010, which is good news, but it is not enough. Furthermore, we need to set longer-term targets. The EU framework provides an opportunity to do so.
The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry has been described—I hope inaccurately—as not being particularly enthusiastic about EU targets. I hope that he will take this opportunity to correct any misapprehension that may exist.

Mr. Battle: If the hon. Gentleman had been able to attend the whole of the Committee in question, he would

have found that the following day, The Times published a letter saying exactly the opposite and that I was probably too enthusiastic about renewables. The original report was inaccurate.

Mr. Dafis: It is useful to have such a statement on the Floor of the House and in Hansard,and I am delighted to hear it.
I am looking forward to a serious expansion of renewables, partly because I live in Wales which is an energy-rich country, where there are important opportunities for jobs in rural areas and agricultural diversification as part of the renewables programme.
I shall conclude, as other hon. Members want to speak. The Government have said that the environment is at the heart of their policy and that they are committed to sustainable development. Getting energy policy right in the wake of Kyoto is the most important element; of that there is no doubt. The IPPR publication states in its introduction:
To most people, energy is not a central political issue".
I would go so far as to say that energy is the central political issue and that everyone has to bend their energies to ensuring that we get energy policy right.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) for allowing me a few minutes of the remaining time.
I wish to compare the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) with mine. I know his constituency well as I lived in north London some years ago, and I recognise the importance of the needs of his constituents and the huge benefits that could emerge from energy efficiency investment—the better use of public transport, and integrating work and the telecommunications system more closely. Huge advances can be made, and the hon. Member for Ceredigion made some important points about Wales.
I represent Ellesmere Port and Neston which is at the other end of the spectrum. It produces some of the products that all our constituents demand as of right—petroleum, obviously, and vehicles—and there is a nuclear enrichment plant in Capenhurst just next door. I therefore look at the equation from a slightly different perspective from my hon. Friend's. I agree that the carbon dioxide targets to which he referred must be taken extremely seriously and that we must bend over backwards to achieve them. However, I think that he would agree that many of the nations in the developing world have a right to expect the use of energy. We cannot impose some colonial will and say that they will not have access to energy. That is where the arithmetic of the whole debate becomes extremely complicated.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion referred to the possibility of a 12 per cent. increase in renewables not being enough. What of a nation such as China, which has some 1.2 billion people—50 times the population of our nation—and uses per capita one twelfth of the amount of energy that we use? China has an enormous amount of brown coal, and if it achieved a quarter of our energy usage by utilising it, Kyoto would be a useless exercise several times over.
That is the crude arithmetic of the situation that the world faces. I am not saying that we should turn our backs on the problem, as we have to take it extremely seriously,


on the one hand, recognising the right of emergent nations to have access to the benefits that energy gives them and on the other, recognising the need to improve the climate for our children and grandchildren.
The only point on which I potentially disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North is the unilateral writing out of nuclear power from the equation. In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) pointed out that nuclear power had its place. Of course, we have continuing problems with the safe disposal of waste material. My hon. Friend the Minister is, I suppose, the principal shareholder in British Nuclear Fuels so I am perhaps patting him on the back when I say that it has a world-class business in the transport and safe storage of such material, but we should not be complacent. We should continue to invest in the science that will enable us to reduce the potential risks and the time frames to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North referred.
This is a wide debate, and I ask hon. Members to consider the point that there is no such thing as a clean energy source. Even renewables need investment in metals, buildings and so forth, which are of themselves energy consumers. I think that all hon. Members would argue that the dash for gas may not have been the best use of a valuable resource in the long term. We all know the problems inherent in coal, nuclear power and other sources.
We must have a balanced debate, and I urge hon. Members to address the matter in such a way. We must look not only at the targets that this nation can achieve—we must stand up for that—but to the achievement of objectives beyond the minor steps taken by the United States in particular. We must do far better than that. I am not arguing in favour of one or another energy source, but we must never forget that the global equation is so enormous and the arithmetic so complicated that no particular source should be excluded from the debate.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on securing the debate and on his speech. I was interested in a number of his remarks, such as his question to the Minister about Government policy on granting exploration licences in the north Atlantic, which is an important subject about which a number of organisations are concerned. I hope that the Minister will make the Government's attitude clear.
A number of hon. Members referred to private Members' Bills, including the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill and the Energy Efficiency Bill. Let me make it clear that Opposition Front Benchers support those Bills; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and I are sponsors of the latter. I regret, however, that the matter has been the subject of an Adjournment debate, which must be introduced by a Back Bencher. The Government would make time for such a debate if they were serious about the issue and wanted to back up the Prime Minister, who said last June that the 20 per cent. target for cutting CO2 was not a

conditional target. The issue was last debated in November, also in an Adjournment debate introduced by a Back Bencher.

Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Yeo: No, I am sorry. The Minister will have a chance to reply, and I have only 10 minutes in which to speak.
We have not debated how to meet the targets since November, which shows the low priority that the Government attach to the subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, who is a shadow Department of Trade and Industry Minister, has been present throughout the debate, but the Minister is not accompanied by a Minister from the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which is disappointing. That Department is closely involved with implementing the strategy, if there is one, for achieving the target for cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.
Four months after the Kyoto conference, there has been no clear statement from the Government on how they intend to meet those challenging targets. The Minister for the Environment told hon. Members that
the delivery mechanisms will be set out in detail in our White Paper in the spring."—[0fficial Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 258.]
Spring is more than half over, so will the Minister say when the White Paper will be published? Without waiting for its publication, will he answer the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who asked what the Government's target was? Is it 20 per cent., which was in the Labour manifesto and referred to by the Prime Minister, or is it the European Union target of 8 per cent? We note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred only to the 8 per cent. target in his Budget speech. Was he hoping that the commitment to the 20 per cent. target would be quietly forgotten?
The target is only a small part of the story. More important is the strategy for hitting it. Are the Government looking to achieve cuts in emissions from households, from the transport sector, from electricity generation or from other sources? I hope that the Minister will at least say what relative contribution is to be made by each of those sources towards achieving the cut. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said, the Government made a curious start with households by cutting the tax on energy consumption, then waiting another eight months before making a much less dramatic cut in respect of energy saving.
The Government have not put the environment at the heart of their decision-making process, or even at the edge of it. The only substantial tax change in the Budget Red Book listed under environmental measures was the huge rise in petrol tax, the second in the last eight months. Increasing petrol tax is a substitute for coherent policy. Experience has shown that petrol tax rises have relatively little effect on car use. Under this Government, petrol tax is not so much an environmental policy as a reflection of their hostility to the motorist. The burden on motorists is especially heavy in rural areas, where no alternative to using a car exists. That is a further example of the Government's lack of concern for the countryside.
It is disappointing that so little has been done to explore other ways in which to encourage greater fuel efficiency in cars. A cut to £100 in vehicle excise duty for


less-polluting cars, which is still only a consultation proposal, is a start, but much more could be done to reform VED on a revenue-neutral basis to give manufacturers and motorists a real incentive to achieve greater fuel efficiency.
Why was there no Budget Green Book? Hansard reports at column 1062 that on 10 July, the Financial Secretary promised the House that a Green Book would be published with this year's Budget Red Book, setting out the impact of Budget changes on the environment. I have not seen a Green Book. I wrote to the Financial Secretary earlier this month to ask for a copy, but have not received a reply. I fear that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove is right: the commitment to publish a Green Book has shrunk to a single page of the Red Book. There has been virtually no indication since the Kyoto conference of the Government's strategy for tackling climate change. Energy policy is crucial within such a strategy, so the Minister has a chance to put that right today.
I wrote to the Minister for the Environment following a leak which suggested that the Government were about to guarantee coal a share of the electricity generation market. Will the Minister tell hon. Members the Government's targets for the relative share of power generation from oil, from gas, from coal, from nuclear power and from renewables? How do the Government reconcile them with the targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions? What are their implications for consumer prices? Are reports that coal will be guaranteed a market share true? Can the Government's target for cutting carbon dioxide emissions be met if the market share for coal is to be protected in the way that has been reported? Is not there a clear dilemma? Why has coal been singled out for a guaranteed market share, when renewables, to which Labour Members have referred, have not?
How do the Government expect to raise the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources from its current level of about 1 per cent. to 10 per cent. in the next 12 years? What specific steps are they taking to achieve that goal? Does the Minister believe that allocating 5 per cent. of his budget for energy research on renewables is sufficient? What will the Government say at next month's meeting when the European White Paper on renewables is discussed?
We are now almost two thirds of the way through the British presidency of the European Union. What lead has Britain given to the European Union since 1 January on climate change issues? How is the EU's climate change strategy coming along? Is the Minister satisfied with the progress that has been made on agreeing burden sharing within the EU? Does he agree that, after four months in the chair of EU Council meetings, Britain has little or no tangible progress to show on the environmental front? As the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Ceredigion said, the Government can offer leadership, not only within Europe but at the next G8 meeting, and carry forward the Kyoto agenda.
We should not overlook nuclear energy. Does the Minister accept that it is, at least in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, a clean fuel? Does he believe that it has a role to play in helping the Government to reach their carbon dioxide emission cuts targets? Will he redress the disgraceful and alarming secrecy surrounding the Government's decision to accept fuel from Russia for reprocessing at Dounreay by being open, at least about Government policy on nuclear energy?
Do the Government believe that energy policy should be primarily dictated by the market? If so, does the Minister believe that that will protect the environment? Are the Government willing to use the tax system to influence the market in an environmentally friendly direction and, if so, how? Have the green Ministers met to discuss energy policy since Kyoto? How often have they met and what has been the outcome of those meetings? Will the Minister publish the minutes of them? What have the Government done to promote energy efficiency on their own estate and when will the latest figures be published?
After a year in power, it is no longer acceptable for Ministers to hide behind endless reviews. The hard choices of which the Prime Minister speaks so frequently cannot be ducked for ever. The time comes to stop reviewing and start deciding. For energy policy, that time is now. Four months after Kyoto, Britain's strategy on climate change is shrouded in obscurity. Our international influence will start to wane if we do not set out how we intend to achieve those challenging targets.
When the Prime Minister addressed the earth summit last year, he did not qualify his green rhetoric by saying that any action would have to await the outcome of the comprehensive spending review. Given the difficulty of extracting any information from the Government about their follow-up to Kyoto, I conclude with one simple suggestion. Why do not the Government publish half-yearly a progress report about how they are meeting the Kyoto targets? I am confident that such a report would be welcomed on both sides of the House. Even if the Minister cannot accept the other suggestions made in the debate, surely he can at least make that one commitment.

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for introducing this debate and for the terms in which he did so. It has been an excellent debate. My only frustration is that I have only about 10 minutes to reply to it, and that others wanted to take part and have not been able to.
The debate has been wide ranging. I enjoyed the phrase "joined-up thinking" that my hon. Friend used. I am usually accused of insisting on joined-up thinking between Government Departments. The thought that we should take away from this debate is that perhaps we need to move to holistic action. The debate has cut across transport, energy conservation, the Environment Agency, nuclear power, energy generation, gas, electricity and renewable sources of energy, and the technologies behind new sources of energy. That leads into science and technology, and the new industries of the future. It is to the credit of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that we have raised this matter on the Floor of the House. It is thanks to my hon. Friend today, and we need to continue the conversation.
I will not have time to reply in detail to all the points, much as I would like to. I am always tempted to adjourn to another room to continue this important conversation. It has been said that the two key issues of the new century will be the world's needs for water and for energy. My hon. Friend made the point well. We need to consider the international complexity, and to make the international connections as well as local connections.
We often get hung up on lighting and heating, but most energy will be wasted this summer through the use of fans and cooling systems in Britain. That will be the key source of carbon dioxide and energy loss, although we often do not connect summer conditions with the need for energy conservation. We do not do the joined-up thinking that we need to do in analysing these matters.
I welcome the fact that our Government put environment right at the heart of policy making. I got the impression from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that he did not even talk to his colleague, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). Perhaps he does not know that we had a full debate in Standing Committee on the European paper on renewables. Perhaps he does not know that we put renewables on the agenda in Europe, or that we have had debates in the House on energy policy and the role of coal and renewables. But then, the hon. Member for South Suffolk sticks to the environment and perhaps he does not talk to the shadow spokesman on energy. We have a different response from the Conservative party on energy every other day, so we are not clear where we are with the Opposition.
Our manifesto made it clear that a commitment to diverse, secure and sustainable energy sources was at the heart of our policy. We committed ourselves in our manifesto to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We set a challenging target of a 20 per cent. reduction to 1990 levels by 2000. On energy, we set the tough target of increasing renewable sources of energy—wave, wind, biomass, landfill gas, energy from waste, energy efficiency and combined heat and power schemes—by 10 per cent. by 2010. That is an ambitious target and we have already taken action to get there. The hon. Member for South Suffolk obviously has not heard of the non-fossil fuel obligation scheme that his own Government introduced. We extended it in November to double the amount of renewable energy. We shall reach 5 per cent. by 2000 as a result of that action and investment.
We inherited from the previous Administration a context in which the old nationalised, centralised system of energy generation, distribution and supply was atomised, separated out and privatised. The national grid was privatised and energy was split into generation by National Power or PowerGen, Scottish Power, Scottish Hydro-Electric and Nuclear Electric. They were all privatised. We expressed reservations about where the free market approach would lead. The system was originally divided into 12 separate regional electricity companies. We saw the opening up of competition in electricity and in gas. We have inherited an energy market system. There is the privately owned Pool for power generation. Spot markets are developing in gas and electricity. Seventy companies are now licensed to sell gas and 25 to sell electricity. In that context, how on earth do we deliver diverse, secure and sustainable sources of energy and ensure that environmental objectives are not undermined by the market system? That is precisely why we have considered regulation. We cannot have pure economic regulation; we must bring into account environmental factors.
Under the previous Administration, 74 per cent. of energy was generated from coal—not from oil as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, which is

included in total energy use, including transport. In 1980, only 1 per cent. of energy was generated from gas. By 1996, as a result of the dash for gas, and the squeeze on and practical shut-down of the coal industry, gas had moved to 23 per cent. and coal had slipped back to 41 per cent. Renewables were still languishing at 0.7 per cent. So there was not a push in the direction of renewables. There was simply a dash for gas under the previous Government. We felt that that was irresponsible, which is why we have checked it to see what we can do to deliver a balanced energy policy. That includes promoting renewables and insisting on a larger share of generation from them.
One could argue that Britain has achieved its targets for carbon dioxide emissions. It did so because the previous Administration closed down manufacturing. When manufacturing shrinks from 52 per cent. of the economy to 22 per cent., we should not be surprised if carbon dioxide emissions are reduced. That is not the way in which to do it. We want to see a shift from fossil fuel generation to renewable energy sources. Renewable sources, combined with energy efficiency and conservation, will achieve the objectives without undermining our economic capacity.
I was asked about offshore oil and gas licences. I have to say to the hon. Member for South Suffolk that when the Labour Government came in, we insisted immediately that environmental impact assessments be imposed on the energy generation industry. The previous Government ignored that, for all their rhetoric about environmental concerns. We have made enormous strides by insisting that environmental considerations are taken into account.
I share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) about the nuclear industry. The Government are not in the business of building power stations, because the industry has been privatised. I suggest to him that the cost of building further nuclear power stations is now prohibitive. I cannot see any private power company establishing an economic, let alone any other, case for doing so. The question of the waste still remains, as my hon. Friend eloquently spelt out.
Yes, we have clear targets as a result of Kyoto. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was indefatigable in brokering the negotiation at that conference. There were rumours that it would not get off the ground and could not possibly be a success. It is a mark of the achievement of my right hon. Friend that a conclusion was successfully reached. Under the Kyoto protocol, all developed countries now have a legally binding target to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Together, they have agreed to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases to 5.2 per cent. below 1990 levels over the commitment period from 2008 to 2012. We will work through our share of that target and present our proposals on how to meet it.
We have already instituted work on policies to promote renewable sources of energy, in addition to our work on supplementing and carrying forward the fifth round of the NFFO. We have already reviewed sources of power and are looking at the flawed market system set up by the previous Government to determine how to deliver sustainable, secure and diverse energy generation.
We shall take forward the climate change programme with the contribution of renewables. In the next two years, the use of renewables will double from 1 to 2 per cent.


Our programme will result in an improvement to 4 or 5 per cent. in the years to come. We need to work with the Commission's White Paper on renewables; as I spelt out in Committee, we shall respond positively so as to develop a strategic approach that will enable us to meet targets to increase the use of renewable energy sources across the European Union. The fifth round of the NFFO order will ensure that we reach a target of 5 per cent. of energy derived from renewables by 2000, which will be no mean achievement.
In my work as Minister with responsibility for energy policy and science, I look at scientific programmes with a view to investing in new technologies, for example, tidal power. A grant from my Department—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.

Beekeeping

11 am

Mr. Archie Norman: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the serious issue of the threat facing the beekeeping industry. It is fair to say that the issue fits into the general pattern of crisis in the countryside, with the decline in agricultural incomes and the threat to the British rural way of life.
Until a few weeks ago, I was not fully aware of the extent of the crisis facing the beekeeping industry, but it was drawn to my attention by my constituents. I, like many of my colleagues, thought that beekeeping was primarily concerned with honey production and that, as long as there was honey on the supermarket shelves, all must be well. I am reminded of a conversation that I had with a senior colleague in which I mentioned my intention to raise the question of beekeeping; he replied that he was all in favour of beef eating. When I said that it was not beef eating but bee farming which I had in mind, he said, "Yes, BSE is a very serious issue." When I said, "No—what I have in mind is the winged sort," he said he had not realised that the problem was getting quite that serious.
The issue is serious, not only because bee farming is worth while in its own right, but because of the central role it plays in British agriculture and the ecological system. There are reflections of the BSE crisis in the problems affecting beekeeping because of the spread of the varroa mite. The varroa mite has been evident in the United Kingdom since 1992 and has spread progressively throughout the country. From looking at the experience overseas, we know the effects of the varroa mite, yet we have taken almost no action to tackle the problem. Today, I shall outline the nature of the beekeeping industry and the threat facing it and our great concern about the passivity and demonstrable inertia displayed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its failure to act.
I shall start by describing the beekeeping industry as a whole. Beekeeping is as old as the pyramids—in fact, when the tomb of one of the pharaohs was recently opened, a jar of honey was found. It is part of the traditional way of life in Britain and has been so for many thousands of years. Today, there are believed to be 20,000 beekeepers in Britain and approximately 100,000 hives, although we cannot be certain, because there is no systematic recording and no national register.
The industry is almost entirely unsubsidised: bee farming is a cottage industry—the sort of industry where, if sheep, cattle or hill farming were involved, the farmers would be the recipients of large sums of Government money—but it is a worthwhile industry because of the combined efforts of professional beekeepers and the many small hobbyists who supplement a rural income by keeping bees and so preserving countryside traditions. This country used to produce 4,000 to 5,000 tonnes of honey, whereas 21,500 tonnes is imported, so the domestic industry is useful in terms of the balance of payments. Most British honey is of premium quality and is sold through small shops or farmers markets. The industry is one to be treasured and supported in its own right.
More important, bee farming is vital to the agricultural chain, because it is crucial to the future of top fruit and flowering and seeding crops. According to MAFF's own


estimates, honey-bees pollinate about £7 billion-worth of crops in the United Kingdom; if the number of honey-bees decreases—in some parts of the country, the honey-bee faces extinction—that yield will decline, to the detriment of agriculture as a whole. The importance of the honey-bee is that it is by far the most efficient pollinator: it is the one species of pollinator that confines its efforts to one species of plant; it is not promiscuous, unlike the bumble-bee, which will move from, say, an apple tree to a pear tree and so cause sterility, not pollination. It has been demonstrated that, if honey-bees are present, many crops yield 40 per cent. more than would be achieved by wind pollination or other insects.
More than that, the honey-bee is vital for the ecology of the British countryside. The National Farmers Union reckons that 80 per cent. of all flowers and trees depend on the honey-bee for pollination; therefore, as the number of honey-bees declines, so too will the number of flowers and trees. That is where we see the importance of small hobbyist beekeepers—a group much derided by MAFF in the correspondence that I have seen. We need hives covering the entire country; on average, bees cover a three-mile radius around the hive, so without having many small beekeepers, some patches of the country will be sterile because of the lack of a honey-bee population. Small hobbyist beekeepers need support. They are dependent on the advice, research and support of the beekeepers federations and MAFF. If we allow this crisis to continue and lose the honey-bee population, there will be no pollination in large parts of the country, with fewer seeds, fewer flowers and, as a result, fewer birds. The garden of England will start to fade.
The threat from the varroa mite to beekeeping is potentially terminal. We estimate that the number of beekeepers has declined from 35,000 to 22,000 over the past few years. We know that in Kent—a top fruit-producing county—that number has declined from 1,000 to 400 in only five years and the number of hives has probably halved. According to MAFF estimates, honey production has fallen from 4,000 tonnes to 2,500 tonnes. The industry is now experiencing a rapid decline of crisis proportions. That decline affects many individual beekeepers, both professional and hobbyist.
I shall describe the experience of a constituent of mine in Tunbridge Wells. Peter Hutton bought 150 colonies in 1995 and planned to increase that number to between 300 and 500 colonies. Since 1995, he has lost no fewer than 165 colonies to the varroa mite and he now has only 50 colonies. The cost to him has been £26,500—a sum few farmers or entrepreneurs can afford.

Mr. James Gray: I know that my hon. Friend has of late been energetic in taking up this issue with MAFF and other bodies responsible for beekeeping. Has he met with sympathetic concern about the problems which he describes, or has the response been less concerned than he would have liked?

Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend raises the central point, which is that beekeeping is a small cottage industry which, to some extent, relies for its survival in the face of crisis on Government support and co-ordinated action, but we have been faced with passivity and inertia. I shall cover that point and give specific examples later in my speech.
In the United States, where there has been far more experience of and research into the varroa mite than here, the US Department of Agriculture estimates that the cost to US agriculture in the form of lost crops as a result of the failure to halt the spread of the varroa mite is no less than $5.7 billion.
Richard Jones, director of the International Bee Research Association, says:
Support is needed
now
for beekeepers fighting the mite and so possibly saving the honey-bee in the UK".
In other words, unless we take action now, the honey-bee may well become partially extinct in the United Kingdom. It is, almost literally, a question of "to bee or not to be".
Against that background, under the present and previous Administrations, the Department, instead of taking a proactive, interested and understanding approach to the problems of the British countryside and the rural way of life, has displayed a pattern of inaction, inertia and lack of interest and given rise to a catalogue of failure and bureaucratic disregard for the industry's needs.
I draw attention to just three examples of rank failure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. First, it has failed to help to find solutions and to license pesticides to treat the mite. Secondly, it has failed to provide proper funding for research and co-ordination to find solutions to the problem. Thirdly, it has completely failed to listen to the industry.
I shall cite specific examples, starting with the failure to find and license treatment. Treatment of the varroa mite depends on rotation of alternative chemicals or pesticides to tackle the problem. This is a classic example of a situation where, with a small cottage industry, pharmaceutical companies will not devote large amounts of research money to finding a solution. To find a solution we need international co-ordination; we need to learn from what has happened abroad; and the Government must adopt a proactive and supportive attitude.
Instead, on 11 August 1997, the Government passed Statutory Instrument 1729, which redefined bees as food-producing animals. The consequence of that seemingly innocuous measure was to outlaw for use in beekeeping some of the crucial pesticides that could help to tackle the problem—notably, a pesticide called Apistan. Apistan is the most widely used chemical for dealing with the varroa mite in southern Europe, Germany and the United States. We now depend almost wholly on a single pesticide, Bayvarol. That decision was taken after hardly any consultation with the beekeeping industry. It was peremptory, arbitrary and, to all appearances, unknowing and ignorant.
It is widely acknowledged that, if we continue to depend on a single chemical, pesticide resistance will develop in the varroa mite. Dr. Cowan, an expert in the field, says:
It is estimated that resistance"—
to Bayvarol, the one chemical on which we depend—
will be found in the UK in two or three years. It is therefore essential that alternative aracides are registered.
To date, no action has been taken to do so.
Ironically, while we were outlawing Apistan and depending on Bayvarol, in Germany Bayvarol was outlawed as unsafe for use in food production—a classic example of complete failure to co-ordinate within the European Union on a crucial food production issue.
I believe that, for five years, a company called Vita (Europe) has been attempting to obtain a licence to use Apistan in food production. It has been dogged at every turn by simple bureaucratic delay, and we still do not have a licence to use it. A very large proportion of the honey that we import and consume in the UK is produced in Europe or the United States using Apistan, so our measure to abolish the use of Apistan in the UK can have had no conceivable impact on the safety of honey for human consumption in the UK.
Two further products, Apiguard and Apitol, have been developed and are coming on to the market. Their use would help to tackle the problem and create a rotation in the treatment of the varroa mite. Must we wait for another five years of bureaucratic delay before those products can be licensed?
The second failure is the complete failure to fund research.

Mr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that it costs about £10,000 to get a medicine approved by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, so, unsurprisingly, many producers are unwilling to do so?

Mr. Norman: I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. The problem is one of cost, and the fact that we have a widely dispersed, small cottage industry. It is not an attractive market for the major companies, yet, because of the economic and ecological benefits to the country of beekeeping, we need from the Government a proactive and supportive attitude to developing solutions and a willingness to work with, not fob off, the industry.
The Government's failure to fund any research contrasts starkly with the attitude of other EU Governments. In France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Germany—as in the United States—a much more proactive approach has been adopted to research, to helping beekeepers through the problem and to ensuring that good husbandry and good practice are adopted throughout the industry.
By contrast, in this country, we have not materially increased the funds available to the industry. Last year, we applied for an EU grant, which was available to help with the beekeeping industry and, much to our evident surprise, we received that grant—in fact, we received more than we had expected to receive. That money, instead of being used to fund research and action to support beekeepers, was trousered by the Treasury and used to reduce public expenditure—a clear example of abuse of the EU subsidy system.
To support that point, I quote from one of many letters that I have received. Ministers do not see fit to reply to letters from the Bee Farmers Association of the United Kingdom themselves, so the task is passed down to an official—incidentally, in the horticulture and potatoes division of MAFF—Mr. Ron Scrutton. Evidently, he is a very important official, because he does not see fit to sign his letters himself, but has them "pp'd" by his secretary. Not only do we not have a letter from a Minister, but we have a letter from Mr. Ron Scrutton's secretary, in which he says:
As you rightly point out, the UK is now likely to receive much more than we had anticipated via this EU scheme. Nevertheless our policy remains as before. Our programme has been based on existing work and EU receipts will be used to offset the cost of that work. I regret that it will not be possible to increase the expenditure in other areas as a result of this unexpected increase.

In other words, the money has gone to the Treasury.
We have had minimal extra support. No action has been taken. The position is redolent of what happened with BSE. We have watched this problem develop for years and we know that it will be damaging. We know that the cost to agriculture and in agriculture subsidies will be tremendous if nothing is done, yet there has been no attempt to address the problem.
The whole episode is redolent of unwillingness to understand what is going on in the rural community and failure to listen to the industry. Not only has expenditure not increased and no action been taken, but the tone of the correspondence—of which I have many examples—is that of fobbing off beekeepers and farmers and seeking any reason to ignore the problem and hope that it goes away.
That is true not only of the correspondence with the unfortunate Mr. Scrutton. The latest insult is the issue by MAFF of a consultation document—an interesting consultation document, which seems to have been hurried out very late, just in time for the debate.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Until my hon. Friend spoke today for the beekeepers, they had no big guns in their support, so MAFF did not take the issue seriously. MAFF has millions of pounds to spend every year on research, and it requires merely a gesture from the Minister—a flick of the finger—to divert research funds from other projects into research on the varroa mite. However, the Ministry does not do so because it does not regard the countryside, and the small people who take part in beekeeping, as important or as relevant to the affairs of the bigger agriculture industry with which they are obsessed.

Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend makes the vital point that the beekeepers have been ignored because it has been easy to ignore them. The amount that should be spent on research, and for which we are asking this morning, is small change compared to the enormous volume of research funds and subsidy that goes into other parts of agriculture.
The latest insult, to which I referred earlier, is the consultation document that has been produced in anticipation of applying again for EU funding. It has been rushed out, apparently in an effort to show that MAFF is consulting the industry after all, which has been given a grand total of nine working days to respond to the document. Interestingly, I note that the document is already dated May 1998, so the intention is clearly to issue it unamended regardless of the responses that are received. The document is also riddled with typographical errors—but we will not go into that now. It is a rehash of old work and old proposals and betrays MAFF's clear intention to make no changes and to take no action.

Mr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that the consultation document does not cover the essential areas of pollination, honey production or the breeding of mite-resistant bees? It does not mention the restocking of collapsed colonies. The consultation paper does not begin to address the problems faced by the beekeeping industry.

Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The consultation document is remarkably similar to


documents that were released last year. One is tempted to think that it comes from the same MAFF word processor belonging to the unfortunate Mr. Ron Scrutton.
I am sure that the Minister has been briefed for the debate on the reasons why nothing has been done. Therefore, I hope that he will not patronise us today by giving a long recital of excuses. This problem affects hon. Members on both sides of the House and it is of general interest to the rural community and to towns across Britain. Town gardens will also be adversely affected by the disappearance of the honey-bee.
We are not here today to examine the entrails of past failures to act: we are here to get some action now to save the beekeeping industry in Britain. I ask the Minister to address some specific points. First, may we please have a meeting with Ministers at which my colleagues and I, together with leaders of the beekeeping industry, can discuss the problem and find joint and satisfactory solutions? Such a meeting has hitherto been denied by the noble Lord Donoughue. He has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) explaining that he considers such a meeting unnecessary. That betrays an uncaring and uninterested attitude, which is, to say the least, complacent. May we please have an early meeting to discuss joint solutions to the problem?
Secondly, will the Minister assure us that EU funds this year will be used to finance incremental spending on research and the spread of good housekeeping practices in the beekeeping industry? The funds must not be trousered by the Treasury, as has occurred in the past. Thirdly, will the Minister provide an assurance that an approach to facilitate the use of pesticides will be adopted as soon as possible—one that is constructive rather than bureaucratic and which helps to find suitable solutions, paying due regard to food safety?
Fourthly, will the Minister assure us that he will support and help to finance the British Bee-Keepers Association's proposal for a national beekeeping register so that we can at least monitor the extent of the problem and understand how much the bee population is declining? We are operating in the dark at present, with no reliable data. Will the Minister assure the House that there will be a change of attitude in his Ministry? Will he give a commitment that Ministers will answer letters personally and take the issue seriously?

Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend add one more point to his list? We must insist that MAFF withdraws this infantile and puerile consultation document. It should be redone in a manner that befits the gravity of the situation and returned to those who need to be consulted with the imperative that they do not have only nine days in which to consider it and respond to the Department. The consultation exercise must be genuine and not the farce that is contemplated.

Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It might be necessary to submit an application to the EU to replenish our funding for the coming year. If we are late in responding to that deadline, that is the responsibility of MAFF officials. Any consultation must be conducted properly; it should not be a pretend exercise designed to make it look as though MAFF officials are taking an interest in this matter at a late date in anticipation of a debate in the House.
We have raised a very serious issue affecting not only beekeeping but British agriculture, the rural way of life and British ecology. If no action is taken, the result will be the loss of agricultural income and the loss of flora and fauna across the countryside. It will be a tragedy if we look back at this debate in five years and realise that we had a chance to take action and address a problem that has grown progressively—the onslaught of which is entirely predictable and could result in the terminal decline of beekeeping and the honey—bee-but failed to take action and, as a consequence, the British countryside has been changed for ever.

Mr. James Gray: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on securing this extremely important debate. If I were the chairman of a supermarket chain, I would be concerned about what the diary columnists will make of this debate in the next two or three days—with references to shafts of light floating through the window, the bees buzzing and the chairman of Asda expatiating at length on the subject of honey. In such circumstances, diary journalists and others who might make fun of the debate would be demonstrating no understanding of the importance of beekeeping and the honey industry to the countryside and the nation as a whole.
My hon. Friend mentioned the essential nature of honey-bees and their pollinating activities. I think that I am correct in saying that 84 per cent. of all pollination in the United Kingdom is carried out by insects, of which honey-bees constitute a large proportion. Honey-bees are the only insects that stick with a particular plant or tree until they have finished pollination. They play a vital role from the point of view of British agriculture and of leisure. I am particularly keen to participate in this debate as there is a large leisure beekeeping industry in North Wiltshire and my constituents have asked me to raise some specific concerns. If the Minister listens carefully to the debate, takes note of our comments and responds in a similar tone, it is important that he should receive a jar of Wiltshire honey. I shall be happy to let him have one.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Bribery.

Mr. Gray: He must naturally declare it in the Register of Members' Interests.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) spoke eloquently about the importance of beekeeping to agriculture and the life of the countryside. Does my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) agree that towns are equally important? Many people who live in towns keep bees and others love gardening—most of our fellow citizens rightly take great pleasure in that activity. Without bees, it would not be possible to have beautiful gardens.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is also true for those who are lucky enough to have allotments in the inner cities. I serve on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee, which is currently considering the great value of allotments to people in our inner cities, many of whom keep bees.
The importance of the bee industry cannot be gainsaid. I suspect that the Minister will respond by telling us how important the bee industry is. However, it is regrettable that his officials have not gone to the same lengths to emphasise the importance of the industry in the correspondence to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells referred. The quiet and successful beekeeping industry is severely threatened by the varroa mite. My hon. Friend did not explain in as much detail as he might exactly what that blood-sucking mite is. I am told by my constituents who keep bees that the mites are spreading throughout the United Kingdom and that, if nothing is done to check their spread, it will signal the end of bee colonies in the United Kingdom. It is the most appalling parasite, which can be dealt with in various ways. Beekeepers throughout the United Kingdom seem to agree that it is important to deal with the varroa mite not by one means, but by applying several different means to different colonies or even to the same colony. Mechanical methods can be used—trapping the parasite in the brood comb is one perfectly good way of sorting out the varroa mite. There are the chemicals that my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned, Bayvarol being the primary one used in this country at present.
There are also home-made old fashioned recipes that work remarkably well. Talc is one, and caster sugar is another. A sprinkling of either in the hive clogs the feet of the parasite, which falls to the floor of the hive and can easily be swept away. Talc and icing sugar are the solutions most commonly used by British beekeepers.
Very sensible, one might think—a down-to-earth solution. Why not make use of a DIY solution to a difficult problem? One might well think that, and one would have been right until a sunny afternoon recently when a European Union official with not much else to do thought, "Let us redefine what honey-bees are. They are no longer insects. Let us redefine them as food-producing animals, thereby putting them in the same category as sheep, pigs, goats and so on." That is an extraordinary redefinition. EU officials are fixated on redefining everything and making everything harmonious and the same across Europe. Why they should have wasted their time redefining the status of the honey-bee, I cannot imagine, but that is their job and perhaps we should not attack them for it.
One unfortunate consequence of redefining bees as food-producing animals is that they become subject to EU statutory instrument 1729. That document may not have made the headlines in recent years, and, for all I am aware, it may not even have been discussed in the House, but it has had an extraordinary effect on the harmless, peaceful beekeeping industry in the United Kingdom.
EU statutory instrument 1729 directs that anything used to make bees better if they are ill must be approved by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate—the body set up to ensure that cows, sheep and pigs are not fed medical substances that they should not be fed. It costs at least £5,000 to £10,000 to have a substance approved by the VMD. Beekeepers are concerned that although they have used talc successfully for years in many colonies, it will now need to be approved by the VMD.
The Minister may say that that is wrong, and that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate needs to approve only medicines that may have some deleterious effect on human health if they are left in the honey. Who is to prove

that talc or the other home-grown products that have historically been used by beekeepers do not have some deleterious effect on human health? Is it necessary for the beekeepers to go through some process to demonstrate that talc is harmless? Do the Government intend to go through the process to prove that it is harmless? Perhaps the drug producers would want to go through some process to prove that an alternative substance to the current monopolistic position that Bayer enjoys with Bayvarol is not harmful to human health. Perhaps we must wait until some human becomes ill as a result of the use of one of those products, before a study is undertaken by the Government.
Surely it is time that the Government said, "We know that talc, icing sugar and one or two other products"—folic acid, I think—"are harmless to health. We will demonstrate that. We will license them in the same way as we have licensed other medicines, thereby removing that worry from the mind of the beekeeper."
Another problem for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is that the cost of licensing a medicine through it means that only one producer so far—Bayer—has got round to doing so. That medicine is Bayvarol which, as we have heard, is losing its effectiveness and, particularly in France and Belgium, it is said that bees are entirely immune to it. Even if that were not the case, it is wrong that the British Government through one of their agencies should allow Bayer to have a monopoly on the only medicine that may be sold in this country to deal with the varroa mite. Should not the VMD move forward and encourage other manufacturers to have their products licensed?

Mr. Norman: Is my hon. Friend aware that licence applications have been in existence for several years, but the VMD and other Government Departments have made it difficult for companies to obtain licences—for example, for Apistan, which I mentioned?

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is right. The VMD seems to go out of its way to make it difficult for medicines to be licensed, and have not made it clear whether home-grown products that have traditionally been used are appropriate.
The Government are aware of the paucity of solutions to the problem. The Minister of State wrote to me recently:
The VMD is aware that there is a lack of authorised veterinary products available for use in the beekeeping industry and this has meant for many years that beekeepers have used substances which have been developed for other, often industrial, purposes which they have found, probably accidentally, to have particular curative properties.
Indeed. Why does not the VMD move forward and allow such substances to be licensed in a cost-effective way?

Mr. Norman: Is my hon. Friend aware that although there are other solutions such as talc or caster sugar, they are extremely time-consuming and labour-intensive to use, and therefore not practical for many beekeepers, who face a declining income anyway and do not have the time—because for them time is money—to devote to the laborious process of constantly administering the treatment, sweeping out the hive and so on?

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is correct to a degree, although he may be speaking more from the point of view


of the commercial beekeeper, for whom speed is all and who has a large number of bees to look after, whereas I am speaking more from the point of view of the private, leisure beekeeper, for whom time spent around the hives is part of the pleasure.
The private beekeeper is concerned about the cost. Bayvarol costs about £5 per application to each hive and must be applied twice a season, so that is £10 per hive. There are about 200,000 hives in the UK, so if they were all treated equally with Bayvarol, the total cost per annum would be £2 million. The total income from honey in the UK is £13 million. About one fifth of the total income from honey would therefore be spent not on buying the bees or producing the hives, but on purchasing Bayvarol from the monopolistic supplier, Bayer. The Minister should take steps to encourage other producers to enter the market and sell products that would be useful to private beekeepers in my case, and to my hon. Friend's professionals.
The Government should research what lies behind the varroa mite and what can usefully and sensibly be done to overcome it. Like my hon. Friend, I am disappointed that the Government received extra cash from the European Union and have apparently pocketed it. A research programme costs £113,000 a year—not a huge sum in Government terms. It is extraordinary that such a small research budget should not be increased, when the Government are receiving the money from the EU. That is a mean-minded and unnecessary restraint on research into an important matter.
I call on the Government, as did my hon. Friend, to correct the pocketing—the trousering, as he correctly called it—of the EU funding that should be used to support the beekeeping industry, which is under threat. The consequence of not doing so is too horrible to contemplate.
The beekeeper, and the farmers who depend on him, are under threat from three pernicious enemies—first, the varroa mite; secondly, the European Union official who seemed not to have too much else to do with his time and who has interfered in a particularly unfortunate way; and thirdly, the officials of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and of MAFF, who have chosen not to step back from an over-zealous European official. Officials, as is so often the case, and especially those at the Ministry, have chosen to go the final mile and to put in place everything to the last line that is set out in the regulations laid down by their European counterparts.
It is important that the officials concerned should correct their approach. It is important that they should consider redefining the honey-bee, and not as a food-producing animal, so that it is not subject to European directive 1729, or whatever else it may be.
British beekeepers have kept bees for generations. They have produced honey and, as far as I am aware, no one has come to any harm through eating honey produced by British bees, which are untainted by being observed by EU and MAFF officials. Beekeeping has been an entirely unregulated industry for many centuries. I am not able to point to one case of so much as an upset tummy that has come about as a result of lack of regulation.
The rash of interference in the beekeeping industry is only one example of the excessive care that the Government and officials are tending to show on behalf

of consumers. It was interesting to read in the newspapers this morning that the only salesman of beef on the bone was found not guilty yesterday at the conclusion of a court case on the borders. The judge went to some lengths to say that he thought that the legislation under which the case had been brought was badly drafted and had not been thought through. As a result, he dismissed the case. Two or three other such cases are pending. I do not want to second guess what the judges will do in those cases, but they may well come to conclusions similar to those which were reached yesterday in the borders case.
We have another example of officials sitting around with not much else to do but think up yet more regulations to control what perfectly reasonable industries do, in this case the beekeeping and bee farming industries. They put regulations in place, bring people to court, fine them or send them to prison. They interfere entirely unnecessarily with people's everyday way of life.
The ban on beef on the bone is unnecessary. The ban on feeding bees with traditional medication is entirely unnecessary. I was struck by an article that I read in a newspaper last week, which stated that more people had died through catching fish bones in their throat than through Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. I hope that the Minister will urgently consider banning the use of fish on the bone, which obviously is entirely detrimental to human health.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech on an important issue, but, as for CJD and fish bones, he must understand that there is a great deal that we do not know about CJD. In particular, there is much that we do not know about incubation periods. I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make a light-hearted point, and, in doing so, is dismissing a serious issue of public health. It is an issue which we take seriously and we intend to be protective.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. He is wrong in saying that I am making a light-hearted point. Indeed, I am making an extremely serious point. I believe that one person in 1 billion may be at risk through eating beef on the bone. By banning beef on the bone, the Government are taking an unnecessary step to safeguard the consumer. The step has been taken because the Labour party wrongly believed that the consumer was on its side and would value the protection that it offered. It is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We have taken flight from the honey-bee and we must come back to it.

Mr. Gray: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The honey-bee has buzzed off and I must return to the drone. I hope that my speech was not a drone. I am grateful to the Minister for his flattering remarks about the excellence of my contribution. That being so, drone is not the right expression. The expression that comes to mind is worker-bee.
There are a number of things that the Government need to do if they are to put right an appalling situation. First, they must find ways of encouraging more people to register sensible medicines. If that involves cutting the cost of making applications through the VMD, so be it.
Earlier, in a seated interjection, the Minister indicated that he thought that it cost about £10,000 to register medicines because we, the Conservatives, had introduced


the directorate when we were in government. I am happy to accept that criticism. If we were still in government and I was speaking from the Back Benches to a Conservative Minister who was responsible for introducing such charges, I would happily attack him, and just as readily as I have attacked the Minister for continuing with such charges. I am asking the Minister to find a way of reducing VMD charges so that more medicines can be registered through it.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to find a way of reassuring traditional bee farmers who use traditional methods such as talc and icing sugar that they will not be in any danger of prosecution in future. A short while ago, the Minister made the point that there has not been enough research into the consequences of CJD. That applies just as much in this instance as it does in others.

Mr. Morley: We do not know.

Mr. Gray: The Minister says from a sedentary position that we do not know. Beekeepers are saying precisely that. They do not know that talc and icing sugar are entirely safe. They would like to know from the Government that talc and icing sugar are entirely safe. They do not want words such as those used in the letter that we have received from the Government, to the effect that talc and icing sugar are entirely safe unless it can be proved otherwise. We would like the Government to undertake the necessary research and to reassure bee farmers that if they use traditional methods of dealing with the mite they will be allowed to continue to do so.
European statutory instrument 1729 goes one step too far. It is an SI to which we would do well to pay no attention whatsoever. Energetic UK civil servants with double firsts from Oxbridge should be spending their time using their excellent brains to consider ways in which they can look after traditional industries that have looked after themselves so well throughout the centuries. They should not be thinking how better to apply European directives such as SI 1729.
Beekeeping is nothing to do with Europe. Indeed, it has precious little to do with this place. For centuries, beekeeping has been an entirely self-regulated industry. Let it stay that way. Leave our beekeepers in peace.

Mr. James Paice: First, I inform the House that I have the privilege of being honorary vice-president of the Cambridgeshire Beekeepers Association, in which capacity I have already raised with Ministers a number of the issues that we have been discussing this morning. Secondly, the Chivers Hartley factory is in my constituency. That company is the largest producer of jam in the United Kingdom and a major blender of honey. I have a range of personal and constituency interests, which make beekeeping an important subject to me from that perspective and also from a wider perspective.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on securing a debate on the subject of beekeeping. I have not checked when the issue was last raised in the Chamber, but it is clearly it is an important subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend, too, on the way in which he dealt with it, explaining the

importance of it not only to beekeepers and consumers of honey but to the wider population. My hon. Friend outlined the threats that the industry faces.
My hon. Friend rightly reminded us that the Government's general approach has been wholly inadequate. Perhaps that is no better exemplified than by asking the Minister who is responsible within the Government for bees, beekeeping and related issues. As my hon. Friend said, his correspondence has been with Lord Donoughue, who is believed to be the Minister responsible for horticulture. Most representatives of horticulture find that difficult to understand, given his apparent inability to keep appointments with them.
My correspondence, along with the parliamentary questions that I have tabled on this subject, have been answered by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will reply to the debate. Three separate Ministers apparently have a finger in the hive in supposedly trying to deal with the problems of bees and beekeeping.
I was astonished to find that there are about 20,000 species belonging to the super family apoidea and the order hymenoptera, which are all classified as bees. About 500 of those separate species are social bees, including the one that is so familiar to the British countryside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells rightly reminded us of the valuable role of bees in agricultural productivity. He did not mention the role of the integrated agricultural crops research establishment at Rothamsted. It has calculated that 80 per cent. of pollination in Britain is carried out by insects, and that 80 per cent. of that is carried out by the honey-bee. Its importance to all types of crop production, whether on the allotment, in the field or in the garden, is critical and cannot be overemphasised. Even in crops where wind pollination is common, such as oil seed rape, the yield improvement due to bees can be considerable and is estimated to be at least 14 per cent.
The output of bees is estimated at about £12 million worth of honey, but, in terms of the pollination value to crop production, it is about £6.9 billion at farm gate prices. That is about 10 per cent. of UK consumption. It is also estimated that some 80 per cent. of our hives are owned by amateurs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, the Government's references to amateurs and to hobby beekeepers in the document that was released last week show their disdain for people who produce honey and keep bees as a leisure or hobby activity or to supplement other income.
The importance of bees to society cannot be overestimated. In my former life as a practical farmer, I recall beekeepers putting hives in the fields to assist in pollination, particularly of field beans. Hives are part of the English countryside and their location in orchards, especially in Kent, is part of the English country scene. A few years ago, agriculture posed a threat to bees. The early insecticides that were used to control aphids and other insect pests were indiscriminate and caused severe damage to the bee population. Farmers had to use avoidance measures, such as using products at different times of day, to minimise the impact on bees. Just this week, the Country Landowners Association reminded farmers of the importance of following the Government's


code of spray safety to protect foraging bees. It reminded farmers that a breach of the code carries a maximum fine of £2,000.
Current agrochemicals are much more specific, and the honey-bee is largely protected from that threat. As we have heard, the current threat is varroa. In 1992, the first infections in Britain were found in Devon, and the previous Government delineated statutory infected areas which have expanded to include the whole of England and parts of Scotland. However, the march of the mite continues. It is clear that such controls are inadequate. Bayvarol, which is the only licensed product, is the only one that beekeepers can use to combat varroa. That stems from the European Court of Justice case of Bruyère v. Belgium which extended the scope of directive 81/851 to prohibit the import of veterinary medicinal products that were not authorised in a member state.
Until that time, although Apistan could not be purchased in this country, beekeepers could buy it abroad and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate took the view that, as it was imported, it did not contravene the legislation. The European Court case ruled that that view was wrong, and it is now impossible to obtain Apistan for use in this country. That leaves just Bayvarol. That has come about without consultation with the industry and it again demonstrates the Government's arrogance in taking decisions without thought and concern for the affected industry.

Mr. Morley: It was not a Government decision.

Mr. Paice: The Minister says that it was not a Government decision, but I am sure that they introduced a statutory instrument to which my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Tunbridge Wells referred. I shall return to that.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about European Union regulations, which the statutory instrument implements.

Mr. Paice: I appreciate the results of the European Court case to which I referred. As my hon. Friends have said, the regulations' impact on British beekeeping is catastrophic. Before introducing the regulation, the Government should have consulted the industry to try to minimise that impact. I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire because it is difficult to argue that a bee is not a food-producing animal. It could be argued that it is not an animal, but it definitely produces food. The important issue is not the definition itself but its impact on the industry. Until the consultation paper was published last week, the Government had made no attempt to consult beekeepers about addressing the impact of the European Court ruling.

Mr. Norman: Although it is right to say that the problem is partly a consequence of the EU ruling, as I said earlier there have been applications over the past five years to license Apistan. I am advised that every application has experienced some sort of bureaucratic delay. For example, it was said that the data were not in the right format. The fact that Apistan cannot be used in

the context of food production is partly a consequence of Government action and is not due solely to the EU directive.

Mr. Paice: As one would expect my hon. Friend has carried out his research admirably, and he is right.

Mr. Morley: He is not.

Mr. Paice: The Minister will shortly have a chance to respond. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate is responsible for licensing the products that we are discussing. If my hon. Friend has been correctly informed, and I am sure he has, it seems that applications to license Apistan have constantly been sent back on the bureaucratic ground that information or data were inadequate. The Government and the VMD are under an obligation to go to the company that is seeking the licence to try to sort out the problems and get a product licence. That is not happening.
The Minister has said that the previous Government set the rules about the cost of licensing. He was right. The concept of full cost recovery was introduced by the previous Government to make sure that systems covered their costs. That is a sensible principle, but, like so many, if it is taken to an absurd extent it damages the concept and integrity of the principle.
Many small beekeepers do not have large resources. It is not a market from which pharmaceutical or chemical companies can expect huge returns, and, in the interests of bee health, the Government and the VMD should explore ways of minimising the impact of costs. We are debating a product for a small industry and not one that will be used on 20 million acres of cereals. The Minister would do well to heed that important fact. I shall be interested in his response.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire spoke about traditional remedies such as talc, which is also known as French chalk, and formic and lactic acid. Those products are not licensed because they are not patented and commercial organisations would not benefit from a licence. The VMD has said that under the pesticide regulations only non-medicinal curative substances would be banned if, when transmitted to honey, they would be harmful to human health. The VMD said:
The VMD is not aware of any health hazards that have arisen from the use by beekeepers over the past few years of the sort of substances various correspondents have mentioned in their letters, although there is considerable concern about something called 'Frow mixture', (apparently comprising of nitrobenzene, petrol, ligroin, methyl salicylate and safrol) about which we are seeking further information.
It is understandable that that should be causing some concern, and I agree with the Minister on that.
The important point is that the VMD has clearly stated that it is not aware of any health hazards from the other traditional remedies. It is a helpful statement and it is right that it should be recorded, but it is still far too vague. Given the structure of the beekeeping industry, which has been rightly described by my hon. Friends, I hope that the Minister will undertake to press the VMD for clear and specific guidelines about the use of traditional remedies so that beekeepers can be absolutely clear whether they can go on using them. As my hon. Friend the Member for


Tunbridge Wells rightly said, they are labour intensive, but, for many producers, they are a satisfactory alternative.

Mr. Gray: I have just thought of a point that I omitted to mention in my speech. The offending statutory instrument No. 1729, clearly outlaws anything other than approved medicines. Paragraph 6(1) says that if any person uses
substances which are not mentioned in Annexes I, II or Ill of the Council Regulations he shall be guilty of an offence.
Whatever the interpretation may be, the wording of the statutory instrument is plain and it makes it an offence to use anything other than medicines.

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is right. That is what is said, but the interpretation is equally important. This is an ideal opportunity for the Government to make a clear statement of declaration about how they interpret that statutory instrument.
My hon. Friends have referred to the fact that only Bayvarol is licensed to be used as a chemical treatment in this country. As has been said, there is ample evidence that in northern France and Belgium, just across the channel, the varroa mite is becoming immune to Bayvarol. It is also believed in some parts of Europe that it is becoming immune to Apistan as well because the two chemicals are similar. There is no doubt that it will be only a short time before that immunity reaches this country.
Some months ago, I asked the Government what they were doing about that and the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
We are not aware of any incidence of varroa mite resistance in the UK.
It is not a question of being aware now, but of foreseeing that it will undoubtedly come to this country and that we will need to do something about it.
How can we continue to import honey into this country when other countries are using a product which is not permitted here and without mutual recognition? I asked the Government some months ago what they are doing to ensure that honey being imported into this country is safe. I was told quite clearly that inspections are carried out and that
Approximately 70 per cent. of the samples collected at random from retail outlets were imported.
In a test for flumethrin, which is the chemical involved in Apistan,
none of the samples was positive.
Those results were for 1996. The 1997 figures were not available.
We continue to have the problem of British producers not being able to use that chemical. The Government have a responsibility to answer the fundamental question about importing food products into this country which are produced using chemicals and techniques that are banned here. It does not make sense. If it is safe for producers abroad to use those chemicals or treatments, why is not it safe in this country? The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has shuffled off the responsibility to the pharmaceutical industry saying:
The question of any applications for authorisation of new veterinary medicines to control varroa mites is one for the pharmaceutical industry."—[Official Report, 12 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 717.]

That is abdicating responsibility for an important industry in this country.
There are other aspects that need to be considered. My hon. Friends both referred to research. Long-term studies being carried out at Rothamsted show considerable variation in the harm being attributed to the disease. It is believed that it may be due to the difference in the incidence of the honey-bee virus in infested colonies. There is no doubt that there is an issue that needs further investigation.
In the United States, which has been mentioned, Michigan state university has been looking at bee resistance to varroa. It has found some strains of honey-bee that are much more resistant than others. Those are examples of a desperate need for urgent further research so that perhaps one day the industry need not be reliant on chemical treatments.
My hon. Friends have also referred to the directive on the improvements for marketing and the production of honey. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told me in July last year that he welcomed the regulation. He said that he was
currently assessing how the United Kingdom might make the best use of the expenditure reimbursement provisions of the regulation
Perhaps we should have taken more note of the phrase "expenditure reimbursement provisions". He went on to say that he
will consult the industry and others about it."—[Official Report, 22 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 552-53.]
That consultation was a sham and demonstrated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, that the Government were seeking to get some money back for what they were already doing. It did not mean that there would be any more money to help a beleaguered industry.

Mr. John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend confirm that under EC regulation 1221/97 the United Kingdom is set to receive more funds per hive than any other European Union member state for the improvement of the production and marketing of honey? Does my hon. Friend agree with me, with my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) and my bee farming constituent, Mr. Ged Marshall, that it is essential that those funds be ring fenced exclusively for the purpose for which they are intended and should not be confiscated by the Treasury or misused and misappropriated for other purposes by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I have no way of knowing for certain that the comparison with other countries is completely correct, but I believe it to be so. What is undoubtedly true is that not one penny of the extra money coming to the bee industry in Europe is coming to British beekeepers or the British bee industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells in his inimitable fashion referred to the fact that the Treasury has trousered it. That is not a novel event. The Treasury regularly sees the European Community as a mulch cow for getting back some money.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has stated repeatedly in previous months on other agricultural issues that it has no money yet, when there is a little extra money coming from Europe, we see it rolling over to the Treasury, which takes the money back into its own hands.
About £1.7 million is being spent by MAFF—£1.5 million on the bee health programme and about £200,000 on research. I believe that it has applied for an extra £475,000 which, as I have said, is being used to fund existing activities with no extension of research.
I want to challenge the Minister about where we are going from here. I hope that he will answer the questions asked by my hon. Friends. I hope that he will deal with the issue regarding the future of the National Bee Unit. I wrote to the Government in December last year and received a reply in January from the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He said:
the work of the National Bee Unit is currently under review as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review which was announced on 29 July 1997.
So the Government are not only confiscating the money that is coming from Europe, but are considering cutting what is being spent anyway. That is totally unacceptable. Will the Minister today rule out any reduction in current expenditure on the National Bee Unit, the bee health programme and indeed research? Better still, will he agree to find a little extra money—we are not talking vast sums here—to fund urgent research into alternative ways in which to control varroa, which is essential? Will he also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has asked, withdraw the document that was hurried out last week?
Frankly, it is an embarrassment for any Government to hurry out a document that is riddled with inaccuracies and typographical errors and is clearly a result of the fact that this debate had appeared on the Order Paper. It is not acceptable for the Government to consult on an inadequate document that does not deal with the issues, and to give the industry just a few days to respond. Will the Minister today withdraw that document, redraft it, deal with all the issues and then set out on a real consultation, with the whole beekeeping industry and those who are affected by it?
The speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Tunbridge Wells and for North Wiltshire illustrated the serious disease that faces the UK bee population. It is of concern not just to beekeepers, but to everyone who is involved in agriculture and horticulture. There is an urgent need for more work—not less—so will the Minister fund more research? Will he show today that the Government actually understand the importance of this industry and undertake that they will not sit idly by, shuffling off responsibility to beekeepers and pharmaceutical industries, while the bee industry is destroyed by a mite that we know little about and which needs far more research? Will he show that, on this issue, if on nothing else to do with the countryside, the Government do actually care?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on securing the debate and on choosing such an important and interesting subject. I also thank hon. Members who have made a serious and thoughtful contribution to the issue of beekeeping and the problem of varroa, although I reject any allegation that the

Government have failed to act on the issue. Some of the partisan points that were made related more to political campaigning than to dealing with a serious issue and, in particular, public health and consumer safety issues. I was disappointed with some of the comments, which bordered on the fatuous.
There is a need, of course, for research, and I intend to outline the steps that the Government are taking. I also intend to make an announcement that may be of interest to beekeepers and to hon. Members who have spoken, and hope to deal with all the points that have been raised.
Beekeeping is not often raised on the Floor of the House. That, perhaps, is a measure of the nature of the people who are involved in the craft. They prefer to get on with the business of keeping their bees rather than come to us to air their problems. This debate has presented an unusual opportunity for all of us to deal with some of those problems.
During examination of correspondence in preparation for the debate, I found no evidence whatever of hobbyist beekeepers being derided by the Government or Ministry officials—that has certainly not happened in this Administration. There are issues such as the use of pesticides and consumer safety. The point was raised about a national register of beekeepers. Some of the comments have been about bureaucracy. Setting up a national register would itself be a bureaucratic exercise and the cost of keeping it up to date would be considerable. There is the issue of the costs and benefits of such a scheme and, indeed, whether the beekeeping sector could run it.
There is no doubt whatever that beekeepers have many difficulties with which to contend. Bees are susceptible to a range of diseases and visitations. They can become affected by agricultural pesticides and they have to face the vagaries of this country's weather, which recently has seemed to be less and less predictable.
There has been full consultation with the beekeeping sector. I was surprised at some of the comments about consultation. In the first round of consultation on the European documents, there were meetings as well as consultation with representatives from beekeeping organisations. Because of the time scale in meeting the EU requirements, it is not really possible to withdraw the documents. I was also a bit surprised because that follows on from last year's consultation; it is within the timetable that has been laid down by the European Union. More to the point, as far as I am aware, there have been no complaints or representations from beekeeper organisations that the consultation has failed.

Mr. Gray: Is the Minister aware that the Bee Farmers Association is plain that it was summoned to MAFF for the annual meeting in October last year—there is a meeting every year—and that, during the meeting, the BFA was informed that the use of Apistan had been banned on 11 August? Information of its banning had not been passed on to the BFA in any shape, size or form. It had not been consulted on its banning. MAFF did not


inform the BFA that Apistan had been banned until that annual meeting, which took place, I believe, in October or November last year in MAFF offices.

Mr. Morley: That is the process of consultation: to invite the organisation to discuss these issues. If there are concerns and representations are made by organisations, of course, they will be examined sympathetically.

Mr. Norman: I think that it is clear that the purpose of consultation is to listen to the representations from the beekeeping industry. The point that has been made to my colleagues is that those representations were made at the annual meeting in October and that they were in no way reflected in the consultation document that was subsequently put out, so, effectively, consultation has not been a listening process, but has been treated simply as a formality. The Minister may be aware that it is also fairly clear—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I know that this is a serious subject, but the hon. Gentleman cannot make another speech during an intervention.

Mr. Morley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall try to deal with the points on Apistan in a moment. I accept that beekeepers are concerned about three particular problems. The mite infestation, varroa, which was first discovered in 1992, is now endemic in England and Wales and there is only one authorised medical treatment to which, in time, the mites are likely to become resistant.
Secondly, the new EU-funded scheme to improve honey production and beekeeping should lead to the UK receiving much more assistance than previously expected—just under £0.5 million—but that is being used to replace existing Government funding work rather than to increase spending. That is the concern. Finally, beekeepers regularly wish to be reassured about the Government's commitment to them.
Those are serious points and they have been reflected in the speeches this morning. I shall try to respond to each of the three key issues.

Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Morley: Forgive me. I have limited time and I want to try to get through those points, which may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gray: What about the point on replacing existing funding?

Mr. Morley: I shall deal with that in my speech.
In the wake of the discovery of varroa, our predecessors reorganised the MAFF bee health service. Laboratory and field staff were brought together under the same management for the first time. Regional inspectors were employed on a year-round basis and much more emphasis was given to training and advisory work.
One thing that all beekeepers appear to agree on is that that was a good move and that the quality of service has improved. In addition to free training and advice,

beekeepers have a free field inspection service for varroa and the two other notifiable diseases—European foul brood and American foul brood. They also receive a free laboratory diagnosis service.
I stress that responsibility for approving medicines such as Apistan lies with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. It was able quickly to authorise one treatment— Bayvarol—for the mite infestation. It is true that Bayvarol remains the only authorised treatment, which is a matter of some concern to beekeepers. That is especially true as legislation that was enacted last year to meet Community obligations effectively outlawed the personal importation and use of medicinal substances that are permitted in other member states. It was not a decision by this Government, which is one of the allegations that have been made.
There is nothing I can do about that, but I should clarify one thing; the matter was raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). Provided that no residue that is harmful to human health is left in the honey, it is still possible to use what are termed non-medicinal curative substances. Those are substances for which no medical claims are made, but which beekeepers believe may serve a useful purpose. The example that was given was talcum powder, which may help to prevent the mites from attaching themselves to the bees.
The question was, who should decide that? Two main bodies oversee safety on additives—the VMD and the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. Their advice is that the use of talc and other known substances is not considered to be harmful. If beekeepers want an absolutely definitive answer, there is nothing to stop them writing to the Ministry, a Minister or their Members of Parliament, asking them to put specific questions to the VMD about the substances that they are using. They will then receive specific answers. On the point about icing sugar, I am happy to give an assurance that there is no problem with using that treatment.

Mr. Paice: The Minister has just pushed the onus back on to beekeepers and asked them to put questions to the VMD on whether the substances that they are currently using are acceptable. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to produce, through the VMD, some sort of guidance leaflet for the many thousands of small beekeepers, telling them whether the various traditional remedies are acceptable?

Mr. Morley: I have no objection to considering that suggestion. The problem is including in a leaflet everything that people may be using. That is why I said that if there were any doubt, it would be far better if people asked specific questions. However, I shall raise the hon. Gentleman's suggestion with my officials.
We are often asked why only one treatment is actually approved. The simple answer is that the VMD cannot approve anything unless and until an application has been made by a medicines manufacturer, with full supporting documentation. Although the process need not be expensive, depending on what information is already available and whether the medicine is already approved in another member state, we cannot force companies to make applications if they do not wish to do so.
It is surprising to hear Conservative advocates of free enterprise and the free market arguing for the Government to intervene and tell companies what they should or


should not do. We do not have that role; it is not how the system works. We have agreed exceptionally that the costs of the veterinary drug residue surveillance programme for honey will be paid for by the Ministry rather than the industry, which is the case for other sectors. It is because we recognise the nature of the beekeeping sector.
That leads me to the new European Union scheme, introduced last year principally to alleviate the burden on beekeepers of the varroa infestation. The UK allocation from what we might call the EU honeypot is much more than we originally anticipated, at just under £0.5 million. The funding must go towards work conducted by national Governments, and we have chosen—entirely within the letter and the spirit of the rules—to offset the costs of the existing considerable varroa programme, which I described earlier. We are already contributing, as a member state, to the increased budget for the cost to the bee sector. That means that our overall contribution to the bee sector and varroa monitoring has increased. It is not a matter of the Treasury trousering the money. It is a bit much for Conservative Members to criticise the Labour Government, when the previous Conservative Administration used the procedure in exactly the same way.
The issue of European funds comes up regularly, including in debates on agriculture. I must emphasise that there is no pot of free money in the EU. We cannot take money from the EU without that having an effect on, for example, rebate calculations. It is a complicated measure, but we inherited it. It was implemented by the previous Government. It means that money that we take from Europe has implications for the rebate that we receive and the overall public expenditure round. We must take that into account when calling for European funding. Despite that, the overall spending on the beekeeping sector has increased.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Morley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have only seven minutes left.
Incidentally, the net gain to the UK is only a little over £150,000.
Of course, there are calls from beekeepers for the money saved to be used to increase expenditure on bee health work, but there are clear constraints on the public purse, which have to be taken into account. Moreover, beekeepers should also keep it in mind that Government expenditure on the bee sector is not always easy to justify, given that many other sectors want the same treatment that the bee sector has had, such as the Government paying for residue monitoring.
Although our bee health service cannot be exempt from the comprehensive spending review, that does not mean that we do not care about beekeepers or the issue generally. Bees—and, therefore, beekeepers—are important. They produce honey and they pollinate farmed crops and wild flowers and plants.
However, it is fair to say that other insects pollinate, too. The impression was given that bees do everything. I do not want to underestimate the importance of bees, but they are not the only means of pollination.
The benefits are hard to quantify in economic terms, but few would argue about bees playing an important and effective role in the countryside. That is why we have continued to fund the bee health programme that I described earlier. In the UK, it costs about £1.5 million each year. The organisation delivering our bee health policies in England and Wales is relatively new, dating only from 1994. At the outset, it was planned to review its performance after a settling-in period. It was therefore right to include it in the comprehensive spending review. I shall not announce any conclusions about that today, as that would be premature.
In addition to a bee health programme involving field and laboratory staff, we have a commitment to a substantial bee health research and development programme. That programme has already significantly increased our understanding of the relationship between varroa mites, their associated viruses and bee health. A mite population growth model has been developed and chemical control methods compared.
Another MAFF-funded project, which examined diagnostic and monitoring methods for varroa mites in honey-bee colonies, is about to come to fruition. I am happy to pay tribute to the British Bee-Keeping Association, which made a significant financial contribution to that work. As a result, we have been able to produce a varroa mite model calculator to assist beekeepers to assess the level of infestation in their colonies and therefore to plan treatment more effectively. A new advisory leaflet will accompany the calculator. That deals with some of the points made earlier. The leaflet will be launched formally in a few days' time, and the calculator will follow shortly afterwards.
In addition to all that, I can announce today that we have just approved the funding of a new research project to examine potential biological control agents for the varroa mite, which might offer an effective and sustainable alternative to chemical control. Selected strains of fungi and bacteria thought to be active against varroa mites are to be evaluated for their ability to control the mites and to persist and spread within the hive environment. Their effect on harmless insects will also be considered. Such an approach could have considerable economic and environmental benefits. The work is to be carried out as a joint project between the Institute for Arable Crops Research at Rothamsted and Horticulture Research International. It is a four-year project, at a total cost of more than £400,000. It is the latest example of this Government's commitment to beekeeping and is new expenditure.
I have noted the concern expressed by hon. Members. Beekeeping is an important part of the countryside. However, it needs to be stressed that it is important to all areas—gardening, horticulture, allotments and so on. Many people are involved in the sector, although the commercial side is relatively small—but no less important for that. Many people view it as a cottage industry, with much of the honey going to family and friends. Indeed, I visit and talk to many farmers who keep hives, and it is nice to leave with a pot of locally produced honey. I have a few pots, although not so many that I would have to declare them or even hand them over to the Ministry.
I was a little disappointed by some of the comments made by Opposition Members. Beekeeping and its relation to biodiversity and the countryside is important, and many hon. Members have made representations about it. Today, I have stressed that the Government take the issue seriously. We are devoting considerable public funds to the new programme, which I hope will be warmly welcomed by the beekeeping sector.

UK Land Command

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I have no doubt that beekeeping is important to some people, but the defence of our country should matter to every hon. Member, none more so than those who represent the north of England.
The city of York has been a garrison headquarters almost continuously for 1,900 years. In the region, there is intense pride about and loyalty to the military traditions of the great north of England regiments such as the Coldstream Guards, the Duke of Wellington's, the Green Howards, the Prince of Wales's Own, the Royal Dragoon Guards and many more. We have at Catterick the biggest Army camp in western Europe, and people in York—and, I think, further afield—take immense pride in the fact that the 2nd division headquarters is based at Imphal barracks in York.
I was therefore astounded to be shown at Christmas a work plan produced by UK Land Command, the part of the Army that defends the territory of Great Britain, that detailed the precise steps to be taken to dismantle the 2nd division headquarters at York by April 2000. I was also surprised to find that no alternative to the dismemberment of the York command was under consideration.
I was especially surprised because on 3 August, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence wrote to me saying:
Headquarters 2nd Division"—
at York—
will expand from within its existing accommodation in Imphal Barracks into part of the vacated area on the ground floor … in building 107 at Imphal Barracks.
So, even in the latter part of last year, an expansion of the space available in York to the 2nd division headquarters was proposed.
The information that I received about the consideration of a rundown of the 2nd division headquarters prompted me to ask some parliamentary questions. I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for the open and helpful way in which they have responded to my questions and met me to discuss what is happening. They have helped me, not least because now, through their actions, I believe, they have ensured that the closure of the York command is not the only option under consideration.
Let me say from the outset that it is right for the Government, as part of a strategic defence review, to review the Land Command structure. I do not object in principle to a merger between the 2nd division, based in York, and the Scottish district, but the point of this debate is to enable me to express a view that I hold very strongly: if the merger goes ahead, the combined headquarters for the new division should be based in York for military, financial, economic and political reasons.

Mr. John Greenway: I endorse all that the hon. Gentleman has said. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and I agree about the need to maintain the facility at York, but I must introduce a sour note to the debate. Why does the hon. Gentleman


think that we have reached the point where a decision is certain to be taken very soon but there has been no public debate or consultation?

Mr. Bayley: I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) here to support me on this issue, but, in defence of the Government, I must say that their approach in the strategic defence review has been open. They have made it perfectly clear that, as soon as there is a firm proposal, there will be consultation. The purpose of this short debate is to ensure that the proposal that ends up on the table will be sensible for military, financial and other reasons. If the 2nd division and the Scottish district are combined, the sensible decision is for the headquarters to be in York. I shall outline the advantages of that in terms of military effectiveness.
The 2nd division is much bigger than the Scottish district. It has four times as many regular soldiers under its command. Almost 11,000 out of the 13,000 regular soldiers who would be in the combined division are based in Yorkshire and the north-east of England. If one combines the regular soldiers and the Territorial Army soldiers, the 2nd division currently has 28,500, while the Scottish district has 9,500.
Just one of the two brigades in the 2nd division—15 brigade based in York—has 11,266 troops, which is more than in the whole of Scotland. The sheer weight of Army activity in northern England shows where the headquarters ought to be situated for reasons of military effectiveness.
In the post cold war environment, the soldiers in Land Command are there primarily to form regenerative units, to back up other forces when the need arises. If they fight, they are much more likely to fight abroad than in the United Kingdom. Where are the embarkation ports? They are in England—on Tyneside and on Humberside at Hull and Immingham.
When I met my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces last month, he acknowledged that the weight of Army activity in a combined division would be in Yorkshire and the north-east, but he asked me to consider recruitment. Since then, I have found out that 39 per cent. of all recruits to the British Army come from the north of England. It is true that 12 per cent. come from Scotland, which is also an important recruiting ground, but more than three times as many come from the north of England—far more than from any other region in the UK. It is the core recruitment ground for the British Army.
I know that my hon. Friend is doing a great deal of work on this already, so I do not need to tell him about the need to improve recruitment to the Army. The Army has its KAPE programme—keeping the Army in the public eye—to aid recruitment, but we will not keep the Army in the public eye in the Army's key recruitment ground of the north of England if we close the Army headquarters in that area.
There are also good financial reasons for choosing York. I understand that the cost of establishing the combined headquarters at York would be £7.1 million less over 10 years than the cost of establishing it at Edinburgh. I am also told that the commander-in-chief of Land Command accepts that York as a base would be more cost

effective, but I have not seen the official costings. Will my hon. Friend place them in the Library? I would prefer there to be a willingness to share the information; then I should not have to ask my colleagues on the Defence Committee to call for it.
I have to say that I am also under pressure from trade unions representing the staff in York to refer the matter to the National Audit Office. I understand that there is a precedent for the NAO looking into a financial decision before that decision has been made; it did so at the request of the trade unions when Catterick was involved in the competing for quality initiative.
If one compares the cost-effectiveness of the existing York headquarters and the existing Edinburgh headquarters, York comes out a great deal better according to the parliamentary answers that I have received from my hon. Friend the Minister.
The headquarters of the Scottish district cost £5.6 million a year to run, or £578 in administrative costs per soldier under its command. The 2nd division in York is larger and costs £7.6 million a year, or £268 in administrative costs per soldier under its command. The administrative costs at York are half those in Scotland. The headquarters at York is bigger because the 2nd division is bigger than the Scottish district. It would therefore cost considerably more to move a greater number of staff from York to Edinburgh—if that were the final decision—than it would to move a smaller number of staff from Edinburgh to York.
In his letter to me of 3 August, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State let me know that there is spare office accommodation at Imphal barracks in York because 250 manning and records civilian staff based in York moved to Scotland last year. There is no vacant accommodation at the Scottish district headquarters.
The economic impact on York would be substantial if the divisional headquarters were to move. It employs 170 civilian staff and 100 military personnel. York is a much smaller city than Edinburgh, so the effect on the local economy of the closure of a bigger headquarters in York—if that happens—would be greater.
The rate of unemployment is higher in York than it is in Edinburgh. In York, it is 4.24 per cent. while in Edinburgh, it is 3.90 per cent. In the six years since the Conservative defence drawdown began, York has lost 500 MOD civilian posts: 200 jobs were lost at the 41 district Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers workshop in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and 50 were lost from the King's division at Stensall, just outside my constituency. As I have mentioned, 250 civilian jobs moved in 1997 from Imphal barracks in my constituency to Kentigern house in Glasgow, when the Army manning and records service was centralised.

Ms Dari Taylor: My hon. Friend is making an extremely pertinent speech. Since the drawdown, my constituency has lost more than 500 jobs from Eaglescliffe naval stores. It was a serious blow to the northern region and should be taken into consideration.

Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Parts of the region other than Teesside and York were affected, as more than 1,000 jobs were lost at RAF Harrogate when the Conservatives were in power.
If a further 170 jobs at the York headquarters are moved to Scotland, 670 MOD civilian jobs will have been removed from York over six or seven years, leaving just 50. When I met the Minister last month, he explained that Scottish politicians, quite understandably, face pressure to move a fairer share of public service jobs to Scotland. I understand that pressure. We feel it even more strongly in the north of England because we have an even smaller share of public service jobs than Scotland.
Since meeting my hon. Friend, I have asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a parliamentary question, to which he replied on 17 March. In London, 1.2 per cent. of the resident population are civil servants. The figure for Scotland is 0.9 per cent; in Yorkshire and Humberside it is 0.6 per cent. I asked the Library to calculate similar figures for MOD civil servants. There are 1.5 MOD civil servants per 1,000 residents in London. In Scotland, there are 1.7 MOD civil servants per 1,000 residents and in Yorkshire and Humberside, there are 0.6 MOD civil servants per 1,000 residents—barely one third of the figure for Scotland. In other regions, such as the south-west of England, the figure increases to something like five per 1,000. The Government should not take jobs from Yorkshire to settle the imbalance. Instead, they should move jobs to Yorkshire and to Edinburgh.
In the past six years, 45 per cent. of MOD civil service jobs in Yorkshire have gone. There are only 3,300 left. In Scotland, although the reduction is serious, only 23 per cent. of MOD civil service jobs have been lost in the same period and 9,500 remain. I ask my hon. Friend with great conviction not to take any more MOD civil service jobs away from Yorkshire. If he does, he will give people in Yorkshire the same reason to feel bitter about Scotland as the Scots quite rightly had when the Tory Administration gathered in public service jobs and the bulk of public service investment to London and the south-east. I ask my hon. Friend not to do that to Yorkshire.
I understand the Scottish pride in Scottish regiments and the pressure to have a general based in Scotland to command the Scottish units. I do not argue against it. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister also accepts that the pride of the English in English regiments and Army traditions are just as strong in the north of England as Scottish military traditions are in Scotland. It would be demeaning and insulting to suggest that English support for and links with our regiments in the north of England are any less important than the tremendous links between the Scottish people and the Scottish regiments.
There is a solution that will preserve honour on all sides. It has already been proposed for London. Although the London district will disappear as part of the strategic defence review, London will nevertheless keep its two-star general for ceremonial reasons and reasons of status in the capital.
If there is to be a joint Scotland and north of England division for Land Command as a result of the review, I believe that military, financial, economic and political reasons overwhelmingly determine that it should be in York, but Scotland should retain a two-star general to command the two Scottish brigades and for ceremonial and status reasons in the capital of Scotland in just the way that a two-star general will remain in London.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) for raising the issue and congratulate him, not for the first time, on being lucky enough to introduce this important subject for discussion on the Floor of the House.
I should say at the outset that while I recognise the temptation to go down the route that he took towards the end of his speech, this is not a matter of argument between Scotland and England. I am the Minister for the Armed Forces who serve the United Kingdom. United Kingdom Land Command is charged with looking at the structure and management of the armed forces throughout the United Kingdom; it is not taking decisions on the basis of Scotland and England, but according to what is best for the Army. It is not taking decisions merely in respect of the north of England and Scotland, but in respect of Wales, the south of England and London, as my hon. Friend said. I fully understand the passion that my hon. Friend brings to these matters, but it is wrong to believe that a decision will be made in isolation about Scotland and the north of England—the question must be put in its wider context.

Miss Anne McIntosh: The arguments about the integrity of United Kingdom forces and where the Land Command should best be located have been eloquently put by the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley). As the Land Command has already moved once in the past 10 years—from the Colchester garrison in the eastern area to York—does the Minister agree that it is wrong that it should face another move even further north, to a place that is even less central? Will he assure the House—I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said—that full public consultation and debate will occur before any decision is reached?

Dr. Reid: I shall not give an assurance to condemn anything simply because it involves change. The whole point of the strategic defence review is to test what will be the optimum configuration of forces and their tasks.
I say to the hon. Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) with great respect that, in the past five decades, no subject in the Ministry of Defence has received more public discussion, consultation, submissions—there have been more than 600—seminars, scrutiny or debates on the Floor of the House than the strategic defence review.
I have personally answered more than 20 detailed questions on whether the headquarters should be based at York or Edinburgh, which hon. Members are entitled to read. On 5 March, I discussed the matter fully with my hon. Friend the Member for City of York, who brought representatives to meet me. Moreover, we are having an Adjournment debate on it this afternoon. If the hon. Members for Vale of York or for Ryedale had been sufficiently interested to ask to meet me, I would have discussed the matter with them, too. I do not accept that either I or the Ministry of Defence have been guilty of omission in discussing the issue publicly.
I have enormous respect for the traditions, loyalty and the efforts made at recruitment in the north of England—I fully recognise them, as does the United Kingdom Land Command. I shall not respond to some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for City of York raised, as he seems to have seen some papers that I have not seen and I do not necessarily agree with all the statistics that he used—statistics are rarely objective, although we are all perfectly entitled to use them to present our point of view.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. He is extremely well informed, not least, I should like to think, because we discussed the subject in my office a month ago—we have been as open as possible in providing information. I have answered a large number of his parliamentary questions and letters—I think that the most recent was only yesterday evening—and I have told him everything that I can at this stage.
Our policy has been to be open, which I hope is to our credit. It is to my hon Friend's credit that he has diligently advanced what he believes to be in the interests of his constituents—and, he would argue, in the interests of the Army—so that I know what those interests are when the proposals are put to me on the future structure of the Army in the United Kingdom.
I say to him again—notwithstanding reports in The Daily Telegraph this morning—that he seems to have the advantage over me, as no such proposals have been put to me. I shall not reply to some of his detailed points, because he is asking me to defend a proposal that has not been made in advance of a decision that I have not taken. The House will not be surprised to note that I shall not fall into that trap.

Mr. Greenway: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his clarification. As Members of Parliament, we are not absolved of criticism if there are matters about which we should have known and taken action, but I believe that the fact that no proposals have been put to anyone explains why there has been no public debate in the York area. The news that Imphal barracks may close will come as a bombshell to the people of York—the proposal will be greatly resisted.

Dr. Reid: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past four months, but I should have thought that anyone who has read the Yorkshire papers, the Scottish papers or, indeed, Hansard—as I said, I have answered 20 questions on the matter—would be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for City of York has been raising these issues.
We need to distinguish between what is being said and what is actually being proposed. At the moment, nothing has been proposed. In the strategic defence review, we are treating the restructuring of the United Kingdom Land Command in the same way as we are an immense number of other issues. We have scrutinised every aspect of our posture, configuration, weaponry, procurement process, strategic pose, relationship with NATO, the Army,

the Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Marines, to ensure that they more efficiently meet the needs of the modern age.

Mr. Bayley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Reid: Yes, although, given the constraints on time, my hon. Friend is preventing me from giving a full response.

Mr. Bayley: I have two brief points. First, there is no question that Imphal barracks will close, as there is plenty else there, including 2 Signal Regiment and the 15 brigade headquarters, although the fact that the divisional headquarters may move from the barracks is serious.
Secondly, I am not trying to set a trap for my hon. Friend. I do not want him to defend a Scottish headquarters solution; I want him to acknowledge the strength of the English argument for a York base—I am sure that he will weigh it against other arguments—and to come to a decision based on the best military and financial solution.

Dr. Reid: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made it absolutely plain that there is no proposal that Imphal barracks should close—it is not only the divisional headquarters, but encompasses an area brigade headquarters. There are a large number of soldiers in the northern region, including recruits, regulars and reserves, as well as command-and-control facilities; there is no question that they should move. No one has suggested such a proposal in the papers that I have not yet seen. I do not want anyone to create in the Yorkshire area a scare that has no basis in fact.
In general terms, the work that is going on in Land Command is not primarily a cost-cutting exercise or an interregional competition. The aim is not to do things cheaper, come what may, but to do things better. At the same time, we are constantly considering ways in which to ensure efficiency. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the search is for ways in which to deliver our existing or improved military capability at reduced cost—that is what taxpayers expect.
By way of background, the House should note that there were in 1990, and had been since 1972, nine mainland districts in the Army structure, conforming to Government home defence regions. In the 1990s, those nine mainland districts were reduced to five and were then rearranged into six. That is the current arrangement, the operational efficiency of which is being considered.
Not only the numbers, but the roles of the divisions and districts have evolved since the cold war. The divisions are more and more preoccupied with support functions, running the home base for regular troops and the training and administration of the Territorial Army, and less and less involved with planning for operational contingencies, the reinforcement of our forces overseas or home defence. It is a matter not only of numbers, but of structures, efficiency and roles.
We are talking about the home base infrastructure rather than the operational structure of the Army, and the two cannot be put together willy-nilly. The regionally based commands are now largely concerned with supporting functions and the management of resources, not with the operational application of fighting power.
That is not to disparage the work that is done in those headquarters. Far from it: it is valuable and even essential work that ensures that our forces are ready when called on to carry out their tasks.
This is one of the extremely important issues that will arise from the strategic defence review. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for City of York, with his usual passion and commitment, has once again been an articulate exponent not only of his constituency interest but of the proud and loyal traditions of the north of England. I assure him that, in any decision, the matters that he raised will not go unnoticed. He has not allowed that to happen.

Planning (Vale of York)

1 pm

Miss Anne McIntosh: I hope to use the opportunity of this debate to prove that, although the Government pay lip service to the countryside and to preserving the green belt and green-field sites, in practice those policies are not being observed in the Vale of York.
I want to disclose some irregularities and anomalies in planning procedures that have been followed on certain decisions in the Vale of York. The most intrusive such decision, wreaking havoc on the countryside the length and breadth of the vale and causing severe and permanent environmental damage, is the consent granted by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for 50 miles of giant pylons.
This decision was unnecessary. The pylons are simply not needed. There is 100 per cent. over-capacity of generation in the north of England at peak times in winter. The transmission of energy in that form wastes power: the combined loss in generation, transmission and distribution is estimated to be 36 per cent. of primary fuel energy. It also flies in the face of current power-generating policy, which is that all electricity should be generated as close as possible to the point of demand. Supply should be located near demand.
The pylons are hugely damaging to the environment. They will blight a landscape between the North Yorkshire dales and the national park. The visual impact of 150 ft steel giants stretching from Lackenby through Picton to Shipton will be grotesque.
The planning procedures associated with the decision are fundamentally flawed. Thousands of objectors will not accept the decision without a fight, including a possible legal challenge. Many features remain unresolved: nine wayleaves in sensitive areas and three sealing end compounds with terminal towers at Nunthorpe and Newby have yet to be decided on.
The opposition to the decision is cross-party and cross-county. North Yorkshire county council and Hambleton district council have pledged their opposition. REVOLT, the campaign uniting that opposition, is co-ordinating a possible legal challenge. The crux of the opposition, and the reason, in my view, why the decision is flawed, lies in the planning procedures that were followed.
It is genuinely believed that evidence given at the public inquiry was misunderstood by the two independent technical inspectors who accompanied the planning inspector. North Yorkshire county council objected to the fact that the applications for consent to the power station at Teesside and for the overhead power lines came separately, and the inspector agreed with that objection. The consent was sought and granted for the power station, and only subsequently, through a later application, was consent given for the overhead lines.
The inspector concluded, in support of North Yorkshire county council, that both applications should have been considered as part of the same application. I refer the House to section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, which sets out the procedures for the construction of a power-generating station in accordance with a ruling by the Secretary of State.
Section 37 of the same Act refers to consents for overhead power lines, and says that, if a local authority objects, as North Yorkshire county council did in this


case, a public inquiry should be held, and that no electricity pylon of more than 20 kV can be installed without the Secretary of State's consent.
I believe that the Secretary of State's decision is flawed, and was reached on erroneous grounds. The people of the Vale of York would like to know today on what grounds the Secretary of State overruled the inspector's advice that the applications for consent to the power station and to the power lines should rightly have been considered together.
Arguably, the Secretary of State overstepped her powers in reaching the decision, and relied on evidence presented by the two independent technical inspectors, which they themselves had misunderstood, leading to her being inadvertently misinformed. The decision should now be subject to a judicial review, to assess whether it was reached erroneously. It seems highly unlikely that the Electricity Act 1989 was interpreted correctly in this case, or that the evidence presented at the inquiry was properly understood.
I gather that there is a very limited time in which an application for judicial review can be lodged, and the local authorities are meeting virtually as we speak to decide whether such a review should be sought.
Wider issues that the public inquiry failed to address and which would have had a bearing on the Secretary of State's decision include the question of undergrounding. I understand that BP is currently holding consultations on the laying of underground pipelines along virtually the same route. Could not the power lines have been laid alongside the pipes? The technology exists, and, on the most recent figures available, National Grid shows a profit of either £681 million, at historic costs, or, at the very least, £445 million per annum at current costs, so it could certainly afford to underground the power lines.
The Labour Government are clearly on the retreat: the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry withdrew his acceptance of an invitation to speak to a meeting at Easingwold in the Vale of York this Friday, where the Government would have had their first opportunity to take questions and explain the issue. The Labour candidate at the Vale of York in the general election pledged that, if a Labour Government were elected, the consent to build the pylons would not be granted.
The Energy Minister, in cowardly fashion, announced the decision in an answer to a written question, so that the Government would not have to respond to questions in the House, and now he refuses to attend the meeting in Easingwold. Curiouser and curiouser: the reason given was that police protection could not be provided, but the police had not been asked to provide such protection in the first place, and we are all extremely law-abiding citizens in the Vale of York, where he would have been given an extremely warm welcome.
If the pylons were the only blot on the landscape, that would be bad enough, but a catalogue of other planning issues are pending, many of which also throw up anomalous procedures on which I hope that the Minister can shed some light.
One success story emerges, which shows that people power, to which the Government respond with alacrity, gets results. Witness the application to build a cattle incinerator at Rufforth, which has now been thrown out.
An alternative site is to be found. The proposed site was on green-belt land in a residential area within a mile of the city of York, yet the city council could demonstrate no special circumstances to justify planning permission.
What is worse, the council overturned the North Yorkshire structure plan and its own green-belt local plan. The local government ombudsman judged that malpractice had taken place in the council reaching its decision. Only in the face of tough opposition by local residents has the council decided to seek an alternative site. At least that is a real success story, and a tribute to people power making the Government review their activities.

Ms Dari Taylor: I hope that the hon. Lady does not mind me making this interjection and asking a question. I felt slapped by her statement about a "cowardly response". The written question was mine, and I thought that it was a fair way to ask the Minister—I asked him time and again when the report was to be published—so I object to that description. Secondly, does she not welcome, as I do, the fact that the decision will mean that my constituents will have pylons, which were shadowing their homes, taken down, out of their gardens and off their streets? They are hideous things for my constituents to have had to suffer. Surely she must welcome the fact that they—as opposed to green fields—are being freed from those hideous pylons.

Miss McIntosh: Obviously, I am delighted for the hon. Lady's constituents that the pylons will be removed, which shows that the technology exists to put these horrible wires underground. In many respects, the issue is something of a red herring. Many of my constituents will face ruin because the price of their land and property will go down, and the compensation being offered is negligible.
I used the word "cowardly", and I am particularly concerned about the way in which the Minister presented the answer to the House. I must place it on record today that he wrote to me in mid-March, literally 10 days before the announcement, to tell me that there was no news on that front. I was extremely disappointed when an announcement was made 10 days later in answer to a written question. If there is one role that Back Benchers such as the hon. Lady and I can fulfil, it is holding the Government to account on behalf of our constituents by questioning the grounds on which such a decision was reached. I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so today.
The proposed park-and-ride scheme at Rawcliffe has been less fortunate than the incinerator scheme at Rufforth. Even though it faces overwhelming opposition from local residents, it is still being considered. The proposed site for which planning permission is recommended is green-belt land, in spite of the Government's stated aim nationally of encouraging brown-field development wherever possible. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister has stated that policy publicly on a number of occasions. Also, brown-field sites exist locally, but have so far not been considered by City of York council, which makes nonsense of the Government's stated national policy.
Constituents judge each planning application on its merits, as the local planning authority should do. In this instance, they feel severely let down. The council is being


investigated by the Comptroller and Auditor General, in particular because the consultation focused on those who stand to benefit from the proposed scheme, not those who will be badly and negatively affected.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: The hon. Lady says that some people will benefit from the scheme, and my constituents would do so. The centre of York is clogged with traffic, for which it was not designed, and that creates environmental hazards both for people breathing the air and for the historic buildings damaged by pollution. Does she agree that the local planning authority has to weigh the benefits to those living in the centre of York against the benefits and disbenefits to those living in the suburbs? That is the authority's responsibility. Does she recall that I wrote to her to suggest that we went jointly to meet the planning officer at the council to resolve those matters last autumn, but she chose not to do so?

Miss McIntosh: Unfortunately, the planning officer chose to leave the council before a meeting could be arranged. As my constituents' views were not being regarded by City of York council, I decided that it was best for me to proceed alone. It was regrettable that the planning officer left before a final decision had been taken.
On the point about consultation, it had been brought to my attention that an expensive consultation exercise was taking place, as I told the ombudsman, and I have evidence to prove that those most directly affected by the proposal were not even consulted, which is regrettable.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent way in which she is pursuing issues in that part of her constituency that for 10 years was a part of my constituency. Does she agree that the constituents of the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) and those in the centre of York will be served by a park-and-ride scheme wherever it is sited? The issue is not whether there should be a scheme, but that it should be sited not on green-belt land at Rawcliffe but on the huge Cliften Moor industrial and commercial estate, where there is popular support for it from her residents, my residents, and, I dare say, the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken the words out of my mouth. I think that we all agree about the need for a park-and-ride scheme. In the more rural parts of the City 'of York area, we share concern about the apparent lack of understanding of rural sites, and the need to preserve the green belt if there are alternative sites. I agree that Cliften Moor is an adequate alternative, but it appears not to have been considered, or even to have been rejected, by the council.

Mr. Bayley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss McIntosh: I am reluctant to do so, as I am running out of time and I want to allow the Minister enough time to respond.

Mr. Bayley: I simply want to offer to co-operate on a three-way basis.

Miss McIntosh: Perhaps some guidance today from the Minister on a three-party basis would be helpful.
There is great concern in the Vale of York about rumours of proposed housing developments—a new town between Thirsk and Ripon, about 8,000 houses between Green Hammerton and Whixley, and a new development of homes on the outskirts of Bedale have all been mooted. All those rumours incite great alarm in the local population, and put pressure on access to facilities such as water and sewerage, as well as increasing road traffic and congestion in what is increasingly a commuter area.
The developments would certainly damage the local quality of life if they proceeded. Can the Government clarify the matter, and put my constituents' minds at rest as to how the rumours have developed, and the exact procedures for allowing such developments?
The final issue concerns planning and education policy, again in the city of York—a shared interest with the hon. Member for City of York. The council proposes to merge Canon Lee and Queen Anne schools, creating a split-site school with one mile between sites. York local education authority has a surplus of school places, which it hopes to tackle through the merger, but the council is not forthcoming about its future long-term education policy.
The proposed merger is not uniformly popular, and is not fair to Canon Lee school, which is successful, with an above-average GCSE pass rate. Parents of children at the school are concerned about the removal of parental choice and the lowering of educational standards. Any savings from the merger would be lost, through added transport costs between the schools and the duplication of teaching aids. The split site and the journeys between the two also raise safety problems for the children in question. Parents are voting with their feet and sending their children to schools outside the local education authority.
Those examples, from pylons to the incinerator, the proposed park-and-ride scheme, the possible new town housing developments and the school merger, show that planning decisions and procedures in the Vale of York are at best muddled and confused, and at worst possibly erroneous and irregular under the law. They show a complete lack of regard—a certain contempt—for the countryside and the way of rural life as we know it in the Vale of York. From the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry down to the City of York council, those planning decisions show a Government who are out of control and unaccountable, like their party.
The Labour party said that it would protect green-belt and green-field sites, but then proposed to build pylons, new houses and park-and-ride schemes all over them. The trust that the electorate placed in the Government to look after the countryside and protect green-belt and green-field sites was misplaced. The electors have been severely let down, and the Government should apologise and reverse the planning decisions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate on the important issue of planning procedures as they affect her constituency. I regret that the brief time available for my reply means that I shall be unable to deal with all the issues that she raised, but I shall try to address the main points of principle.
Planning procedures can be complex, and always require careful handling by the responsible authorities, be they Secretaries of State or local planning authorities
Indeed, I must take care not to prejudice the outcome of planning cases in which I may become involved, should they be referred to the Department, or to interfere in established procedures for considering complaints about or challenges to planning decisions. The hon. Lady must understand the essential constraints on what I can say.
The Vale of York is an area of scenic countryside which I know well, and I have enjoyed my visits to it. The Government are committed not only to improving the quality of the urban environment, but to conserving and enhancing the quality of the countryside in Yorkshire and everywhere else. We stressed that in our policy document "Planning for Communities of the Future", in which we rightly say that the way to save our countryside is to make our towns and cities more attractive places in which to live and work. It is not a question of country versus town, but of making sensible and balanced decisions that recognise the importance and the value of both.
We are also committed to local and democratic decision making. With a few notable exceptions, planning decisions in local areas are best made locally. We do not intend to interfere in that unless it is necessary to do so. I hope that the hon. Lady, whose constituency includes the historic site of the battle of Marston moor, will not encourage an over-mighty Government to interfere too much in the rights of local communities, or the same spirit that many years ago led representatives of this House to fight for their rights might raise its head again.
I am aware that the hon. Lady's constituency incorporates parts of several local planning authority areas, and that the detailed practices of the authorities may vary from place to place. Let me describe broadly the operation of the planning system in the Vale of York.
Procedurally, the local planning authorities must follow statutory Acts, regulations and directions, but the first and essential point is that planning decisions in the Vale of York must take account of national policy and advice. Our advice is set out in planning policy guidance notes and departmental circulars.
At the regional level, in March 1996 the previous Government published regional planning guidance for what was then the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Work to revise it is under way in the region. The hon. Lady will be aware of our recently stated intention to enhance regional planning guidance with much more extensive regional involvement in preparation.

Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: I shall, but the hon. Lady will be aware that time is limited.

Miss McIntosh: Can the Minister assure hon. Members that green-belt sites should not be built on?

Mr. Raynsford: I can assure the hon. Lady that planning policy guidance in PPG II has always made it clear that there is a presumption against development in the green belt, and that presumption remains absolutely the same. The principle that development should take place in the green belt only in exceptional circumstances has been part of planning policy for some years.
I remind the hon. Lady that, when in power, the Conservative party varied that policy, and allowed developments in the green belt on a number of occasions when it was thought that there were overriding reasons for doing so. It would be wrong to take a party view on the matter. The presumption is that there should not be development in the green belt, except in special and overriding circumstances.
We are committed to a plan-led system for making decisions about planning applications. The guideline is that a planning decision must accord with the development plan, unless material considerations suggest otherwise. The development plan is therefore paramount. Local planning authorities must recognise that in making decisions about planning applications.
In the Vale of York, the development plan that sets out strategic policy is the North Yorkshire county structure plan. It was adopted in 1980, and has been altered three times since then. I understand that discussions are now under way about a further review of the plan, so that it can be brought up to date jointly by the four authorities involved: North Yorkshire county council, City of York council, and the two national park authorities with structure planning responsibilities in North Yorkshire.
Structure plans are rarely concerned with specific sites, which are identified in local plans. The coverage of local plans in the Vale of York is incomplete, but detailed districtwide local plans are being prepared. In the Hambleton district, objections have been considered at a public inquiry. The inspector reported in July last year, and I have been informed that the district council is about to publish proposed modifications.
In Harrogate district, a public local inquiry is looking into objections to the draft local plan. In York, I understand that the city council is soon to issue a draft local plan that will cover the revised city area for the first time. It will be placed on deposit, which will allow anyone to object to its proposals.
There is national advice and statutory direction about what constitutes a departure from local plans, but it is essentially for local planning authorities to decide whether particular planning applications justify departure. The Secretary of State has powers to intervene in any planning application without its being referred to him, but they are rarely used. Most decisions are best taken locally, by the responsible authorities.
That procedural detail leads me back to the statutory Acts and regulations to which planning decision makers must adhere in the Vale of York. I am sure that the hon. Lady does not want me to go into every detail of the matters that we are discussing today, but I should say that members of local planning authorities are elected to represent the interests of the whole community in planning matters.
Local opposition to or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or for granting permission, unless there are valid substantiated planning reasons for doing so. When determining planning applications, authorities must take account of relevant views on planning matters, including those expressed by local residents and third parties.
The hon. Lady mentioned the northern gateway park-and-ride scheme. I am aware of the City of York's proposal, and we have received a great deal of correspondence about it. I understand that it is usually


referred to as the York northern gateway proposal, a description which applies to a successful bid to the previous Administration by City of York council for support under the capital challenge programme.
I should stress that the availability of Government funding for the scheme has always been conditional on planning consent being granted. Therefore, there is no question of that influencing whether consent will be given. If there are concerns, they must be considered locally. The matter is for the council to decide, following citywide consultation. If local residents are still concerned, they may consider a challenge in the courts or assessment by the local government ombudsman. I have recently replied to correspondence from the hon. Lady on that matter.
I know about the proposals for a temporary animal cremator at Rufforth, and I understand that the City of York council resolved to grant permission in 1997. However, the local government ombudsman has decided that there was maladministration, because the council did not refer the planning application to the Secretary of State.
The council reconsidered the issue last week, and decided to refuse planning consent for a revised application and rescinded the previous resolution. The applicants may consider an appeal to the Secretary of State, so I cannot comment on the matter. I hope that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that the local authority appears to have responded positively to the views of the ombudsman.
The proposed new settlement in the Thirsk and Ripon area is merely one of a number of development scenarios suggested by consultants, not by the Government, and certainly not by the Labour party. The consultants are helping the planning conference of local authorities in what is now Yorkshire and the Humber region on the review of regional planning guidance for the region.
The proposal has no official backing from the local authority planning conference or from my Department. It is simply an issue which will be considered by the conference of local authorities in developing regional guidance. It is proper that they should review options and decide, in the light of their experience of the region the most appropriate solution.
The hon. Lady gave a great deal of time in her speech to the North Yorkshire power line. Unfortunately, that is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and it would not be appropriate for me to make detailed comments on it, other than to say that my right hon. Friend looked carefully at the conclusions of the two major public inquiries—six and a half years of consideration—which led to the decision.
The decision was based on the views of independent inspectors who had considered the matter carefully. The full reasons for my right hon. Friend's decision are contained in the decision letter sent by her to the company, and it would not be right for me to comment further on the issue.
The hon. Lady has made allegations about my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry. I regret that she chose to make them in a debate in which he was not present and was not able to answer. I regret the use—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We now move on to the next debate.

National House-Building Council (Warranty)

Mr. Brian White: Before I came into this place, I was the chair of the Local Government Association planning committee, and I worked for Abbey National designing its mortgage system. Since I have been elected, a couple of new estates have been built in my constituency, so Milton Keynes has a large number of new homes. We are having this debate in the context of the Government's policy that 60 per cent. of new development should be on brown-field sites, as was mentioned in the previous debate. That policy raises issues about the quality of that development, contaminated land, affordability and a number of other issues.
I congratulate the Government on the initiatives that they have already taken, the reviews that they have done, the updating of the planning legislation, the recent announcement on design for the disabled, and a number of other initiatives taken by colleagues, such as private Members' Bills on energy efficiency. In this debate, I shall try to be reasonable, but I suspect that some of the victims of defects in house building would be less than charitable.
Last week, a television programme called "On the House" looked at an estate in my constituency, where a few houses had serious defects and others had major problems, but most had problems of the niggly variety. The programme damned the whole estate because there is not an adequate system for remedying problems.
The National Association of New Home Owners estimates that about 1,000 to 1,500 new homes have serious defects, by which it means roof supports that do not support roofs and that kind of thing.

Mr. Jim Dobbin: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way at this juncture. I congratulate him on securing this debate at a timely moment in the Government's period of office. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his recent consultation document "Combating Cowboy Builders". A recent Granada Television programme called "Builders from Hell" highlighted some of the serious problems created by rogue builders in various parts of the country.
If hon. Members had viewed that programme, they would have seen 20 minutes dedicated to the Kiely brothers, who have built sub-standard properties in my constituency and around greater Manchester. They are mainly new-built homes with plumbing deficiencies, insulation deficiencies and major structural defects. The builders have left streets unfinished, and failed to provide street lighting or even proper drainage.
One estate in particular—Victoria mews in Bury—has cost the National House-Building Council £750,000 in insurance claims to correct the mistakes. No national insurer will now insure that company. It encouraged clients to use its own firm of solicitors for conveyancing. It provides marketing services—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long. The hon. Gentleman, with the agreement of his hon. Friend, may make a short speech later. That may be the best way to proceed.

Mr. White: My hon. Friend has dealt with cowboy builders, and I agree entirely with him. Defects can occur with any builder. A large reason for that is the system of subcontracting. The National House-Building Council vets builders, but there is no way in which it can vet subcontractors. The system of competitive tendering, the penalties system and the low skills of the work force that many subcontractors use mean that we have a real problem of poor workmanship.
In my constituency, a reputable builder used a subcontractor from the Confederation of Registered Gas Installers to install gas pipes in houses eight or nine years ago. This year, a number of those gas pipes were found not to have been lagged. Home owners in that street are now worried that they will have major problems with their gas supply, and gas leaks.
There is a real problem with inspections. There is no agreement about how many inspections are needed. Local authorities argue that there about seven points at which new homes ought to be inspected. The NHBC argues that there are four, and does only two. A "Dispatches" programme last November highlighted what happened when half an estate was inspected by local authority inspectors and the other half by NHBC inspectors. In the first half there were few problems, and in the other there were substantial problems in many of the houses. The same programme identified a national survey that showed that many houses had blatant defects.
One builder in my constituency told the home owner that he had forgotten to put the foundations into the porch, and that it would have to be rebuilt. A former NHBC inspector told the "Dispatches" programme that he was constantly told not to upset the builders.
The NHBC gives quality awards to various builders. Despite its denials, I have a letter from a major builder saying that the NHBC tells the builders when the inspection will take place, and how to get round it. Another major concern is the time taken to inspect a house—in general, it is only a few minutes. It is easy to skimp on inspections, because profits are high and penalties almost non-existent for not doing them properly.
My major concern in this debate is the conflict of interests between the inspection and the NHBC warranty. A little while ago, the previous Government forced local authorities to separate their client and contractor roles. With hindsight, I think that that was a good decision. The same applies to the NHBC. There should be a distinct split between the inspection role and the provision of warranties. One company should not do both.
Very few people understand warranties. If one gets one at all, it arrives weeks after moving in to the new home. It is not a guarantee, although most people believe it is. It starts on the day of the final inspection, not when one moves in to the house. Many people do not realise that. If the house has been empty for six or nine months, people have lost that amount of the warranty in the crucial first two years.
Zurich Municipal does have a buy-back scheme for local authorities, but the NHBC does not. That is a source of contention. Many people confuse the warranty system

with the mortgage provider's building insurance. If people get a problem, the first response is a denial. The second is to shift the responsibility either from the NHBC to the builder or vice versa. The whole system seems to be delay, delay, delay, especially after that crucial two-year period. The timing of the claim can affect how much compensation people get.
One thing that really worries me about the NHBC is that everyone trusts the Consumers Association, which stands up for consumers' rights in everything except house purchases, which is the single biggest purchase that most people make. I do not accuse the Consumers Association of being corrupt, but if it investigated its role with regard to the NHBC, it would be less than complimentary if the investigation was about anyone other than itself. The Consumers Association should ask itself some serious questions about its role.
I have no faith in the NHBC's proposed consumer council. We ought to have such a council, but it ought to be independent, and have some teeth. Housing logbooks have been talked about for a long time. My hon. Friend the Minister has spoken about them in the past. It is long past the time when we should introduce them. They should be one of the top priorities for the Government.
If most new building is to be on brown-field sites, the warranty system must be extended to refurbishments, alterations, improvements and renovation, for example, of blocks of flats. In addition, the problem of the speed with which most problems are resolved and claims dealt with needs to be addressed, and an independent disputes resolution procedure—perhaps an ombudsman—introduced.
The Government must tackle the monopolistic aspects of the warranty system and the NHBC's role. It makes an operating profit of £10 million, and has reserves of £600 million. It pays out, on average, £15 million a year—although, if my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) is correct, this year's figure may be slightly higher—which means that only a small proportion of its reserves are used to pay out.
On the issue of building control, local authority fees are set by the Government, although the local authority associations came within a whisker of persuading the previous Government to devolve fee setting to local authorities. I hope that I can persuade the Minister to go one step further than the previous Government, and permit that devolution.
Independent structural surveys are crucial to proper inspection. There should be a full survey by an independent structural engineer immediately before warranty—I am sure that the issue of who pays for that can be resolved. If the housing logbook was be made valid by starting with that structural survey, it would build confidence among new home owners.
Before mortgage, purchasers should be required to get an independent structural survey, which would offer them the protection of knowing what they were buying. It would be possible to introduce into that process matters such as the energy rating and other environmental audit aspects of the house. Either the seller or, in the case of a new house, the builder could be made responsible for the first survey, which would help to increase confidence in the system.
There should be an audit mechanism for the inspection process. My preferred solution would be to return the inspection process to the sole control of local authorities, although I am not sure that I can persuade my hon. Friend the Minister to go that far today.
A 1996 Justice report made several recommendations. I urge the my hon. Friend to implement the updating of the Defective Premises Act 1972, so that it is possible to ensure that work is done with good workmanship, using proper materials, and that a dwelling is fit for habitation; and to extend the period in which builders can be sued from six years to, say, 12 or 15 years. In addition, section 38 of the Building Act 1984, which would allow a breach of building regulations to be actionable, has never been implemented, and I urge my hon. Friend to consider implementing such a measure.
So as to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton to contribute, I shall end my speech. The problem is complex, as the Minister is aware, but there is an urgent need for comprehensive reform. Given that it is the Government's policy to build on brown-field sites, which is a welcome development, the problem needs to be addressed quickly so that house purchasers—especially new house purchasers—can have a degree of confidence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I take it that the Minister has no objection to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) addressing the House?

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): indicated assent.

Mr. Jim Dobbin: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your earlier advice. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) for allowing me a couple of minutes in which to speak. I agree with much of what he has said.
The company I mentioned earlier encouraged clients to use for conveyancing a firm of solicitors which are the company's own solicitors; it also provides mortgages from firms linked to the company. How can that be allowed in 1998? It is obvious that tighter legislation to protect home buyers is urgently required. Raising the profile of this serious problem is one of the reasons that I submitted early-day motion 1146. I received a letter from the chief executive of the NHBC supporting that early-day motion.
As part of the consultation process, I shall offer the Minister some proposals put together by my local trading standards department in the borough of Rochdale. In addition, there was a meeting yesterday of Manchester building control officers, who are considering the problem. I am confident that the Government will tackle this serious issue, and I await legislation to protect home buyers and to rid the country of rogue builders.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) on his success in securing the debate, and on choosing a subject of real concern—the standard of new houses and

the importance of ensuring that there is real redress when members of the public have acquired a house that proves to be defective.
I share my hon. Friend's concern that there are far too many defects in new houses, and that, when such defects arise, the response is not always as effective as it should be. We should be encouraging in the house-building industry and in the construction industry generally a culture that seeks to ensure zero defects on handover, and guarantees effective remedies when defects are found. If it is properly structured and managed, a new home warranty system can be a powerful force for pushing up standards of construction and after-sales service, and giving the public reassurance that they will be covered.
In my response to the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes, North-East and for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin), I shall concentrate on three issues: first, the role of the National House-Building Council in respect of new homes and warranties; secondly, the operation of the building control function; and, thirdly, cowboy builders, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton referred. The NHBC's role in the building of new homes falls into two main areas: first, the provision of building control services by its subsidiary company NHBC Building Control Services Ltd.; secondly, the provision of a new homes warranty under its non-statutory Buildmark warranty scheme.
Before I address the concerns raised about the NHBC's Buildmark warranty scheme, it is important to outline the cover it provides. The scheme provides a 10-year warranty consisting of two parts. The first part covers any defects that arise during the first two years as a result of the builder not keeping to any of the NHBC's standards for materials and workmanship. The second entitles the owner to claim against damage caused by defined structural defects within years three to 10.
When a defect covered by the scheme is discovered within the first two years of the warranty and the builder fails to carry out remedial work, the NHBC provides a free conciliation service. Should that prove unsatisfactory, or if a dispute arises between the owner and the builder or the owner and the NHBC at any time in the 10-year period of the warranty, the scheme also provides an arbitration service. That is an independent procedure, with the arbitrator appointed by the chairman or a vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
From correspondence received by my Department, recent television and radio programmes, issues raised by my hon. Friends in the debate and my own personal experience over many years, I know that there are real concerns about the effectiveness of the NHBC warranty scheme. Many representations have been made by bodies such as the National Association of New Homeowners about the failure of the scheme in certain cases to provide adequate safeguards for home owners whose homes have proved unsatisfactory.
I share those concerns, and I am determined that positive action should be taken to address them. That is why I have on three separate occasions in the past year met the chief executive and senior officials of the NHBC, and why I am closely monitoring the NHBC's review of its warranty service. I have not ruled out Government action to improve consumer protection in this area, but I should prefer action to be taken voluntarily
At my most recent meeting with the NHBC's chief executive, on 24 March, I acknowledged that the NHBC has done a great deal of useful work since its review was launched last year. I am encouraged by the progress that the NHBC has made in several areas, and I hope that its efforts bear fruit. However, I believe that the NHBC can make further progress on several other matters; I am especially interested in what proposals it has for improving the conciliation and arbitration arrangements, and for putting into the public domain information on the performance of builders in terms of reliability and after-sales service.
There is a question whether the NHBC should more clearly separate its various roles. I believe that it accepts that there is a need for its roles as standard setter, as independent regulator and as insurance provider to be more clearly defined and demarcated. For example, it accepts that owners need to be assured that the person dealing with a claim under the warranty or carrying out a conciliation between the owner and the builder is from a different part of the NHBC's operations than that which undertook initial inspection of the property for warranty purposes, or for the purposes of building control.
To address that issue, the NHBC has informed me that, from 1 July, all its claims staff will report to the director of claims at NHBC head office. That will ensure management lines which are clearly separate from the inspection function. In addition, the NHBC is undertaking a major overhaul of its conciliation service, so that it, too, will be distanced from the claims-handling function. I await more details, but I hope that those management reforms will help to make the NHBC services more transparent, more impartial and more responsive to consumer concerns.
I hope that reforms to the conciliation service will also include greater powers for the NHBC to step in directly and put matters right. The NHBC has said that its revised conciliation service will be backed by a new finishing standard and after-sales protocol for house builders.

Ms Tess Kingham: A constituent in Gloucester has had an on-going problem with a 10-year warranty for almost 10 years. During the arbitration process with the NHBC, he has been expected to pay for every arbitration case that has been brought. There is a list of about 65 different items, from the roof going wrong to the floor needing to be dug up, and he has been expected to pay his own costs for every arbitration claim. Will that issue be addressed in the review?

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that case. As I emphasised earlier, I believe that the NHBC must address the effectiveness of both the conciliation and the arbitration service, because, although in principle the mechanism appears to amount to a sensible approach, I have heard too many cases, such as the one that my hon. Friend has raised, in which people have found it unsatisfactory in practice.
We do not want arrangements that, although they work in theory, do not provide effective reassurance and redress for members of the public who suffer experiences similar to those suffered by my hon. Friend's constituent. If my hon. Friend wants to write to me about that individual

case, I shall undertake to raise it with the NHBC, but I give her the assurance that we are seeking general improvements in both the conciliation and the arbitration services, to ensure that the public can rely on them and not feel intimidated by costs or any other factor.
I shall await the NHBC's response to the outcome of our latest meeting, and to the letter that I sent to its chief executive afterwards, and the overhaul of its conciliation service, before considering whether the Government need to take further action in that area. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept, therefore, that I cannot say much more today on the subject, other than to reassure them that I am taking, and shall continue to take, a close interest in the matter.
In the past year, I have spoken to the other major provider of warranties for new home owners, Zurich Municipal, and to the Council of Mortgage Lenders. I have made it clear that warranties, from whatever source, should offer home owners comparable quality of protection and service in dealing with complains and sorting out problems.
I have also encouraged closer liaison between the NHBC and Zurich Municipal, to ensure that, although they are commercial competitors, they can work together against poor performance by house builders. Naturally, there was concern that if either company refused to accept a builder on to its register, it could lose business if the other company automatically took that builder on to its register. It is a legitimate concern, which I fully understand, and I want common standards to ensure that bad builders who fail to meet proper standards will be unacceptable to both main warranty providers. It is still early days, but I am hopeful that the dialogue will lead to effective action.
There is a question about potential conflict between the NHBC's role in providing warranties and its role as an approved inspector. In my view, there need not be conflict between those roles. It is not in the interests of the NHBC as a warranty provider that defects should appear that could lead to claims. For its part, the building control subsidiary has a statutory duty to take reasonable steps to satisfy itself that building work satisfies the building regulations. It also has a commercial interest in maintaining a reputation for effective inspection services against the background of growing competition from other approved inspectors and local authority building control.
I acknowledge the argument that if defects arise, NHBC staff may be more inclined to downplay them or argue that the defects were not initially present in the house as built, because to acknowledge defects would cast doubt on the NHBC's inspection role. However, I believe that the risk can be lessened by the management restructuring that the NHBC is undertaking. I await additional details of the NHBC's plans to put in place effective Chinese walls between the initial inspection staff and claims evaluation staff.
The NHBC's second role in relation to the building of new homes is the provision of building control services. It is important to see that aspect of the NHBC's work in the context of the framework provided by the building regulations. The construction of any new home is subject to the requirements of the building regulations in force at the time of construction. Those regulations are primarily concerned with protecting the health and safety of those in and around buildings. They place responsibilities on


the various parties involved in the construction of new buildings, and allow for action to be taken against them when they fail to comply with requirements.
A builder or developer intending to construct a new home is required by law to obtain building control approval. The general function of building control—whether provided by a local authority or an approved inspector—is to ensure, as far as possible, that building regulations are complied with.
I have no doubt that competition between different agencies involved in building control can help to ensure good value and choice to the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East mentioned the problem of fee setting by local authority building control. I have announced that I am working on regulations that will allow for the devolution of fee setting. I hope to make further progress on that soon.
I should like to reassure my hon. Friend that I am determined to ensure that competition in the provision of building control does not drive down standards; it must be seen to maintain and improve them. That is why I have consulted the Local Government Association, the Construction Industry Council and the Association of Corporate Approved Inspectors on ways of securing consistent building control standards and better conditions for competition, throughout the public and private sectors of building control. That is why I have welcomed the establishment of a steering group by those three bodies to draw up recommended standards and monitoring arrangements.
However, it should be remembered that building control—whoever provides it—can be only a checking process. It does not remove from the person carrying out building work the primary responsibility for ensuring that the work complies with the regulations.
My hon. Friend mentioned the number of inspections carried out by local authorities and by the NHBC. It is true that, where local authorities carry out building control, there are several stages at which the authority must be given an opportunity to inspect. However, it is for each local authority to decide how many inspections to make in each case.
Approved inspectors must also decide in each case what inspections to make to fulfil their duties. I understand that, on average, the NHBC inspects properties 11 times in cases where it is carrying out both warranty inspections and building control inspections.
I believe that we should concentrate on ways of consolidating and improving standards of building control in both sectors. Building control can be only a checking process, not a substitute for builders' own quality control, but I want building control to provide the best realistic level of confidence that the regulations have been complied with.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East mentioned various matters involving the conveyancing system, including surveys and logbooks. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing has set up a working party, with the Lord Chancellor's Department and other interested parties, to review the house purchase process. That will consider these and other relevant matters, and will, I hope, report later in the year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton mentioned cowboy builders. He rightly highlighted the serious problems encountered by members of the public as a result of the behaviour of disreputable and rogue traders, who provide a poor standard of service and poor value for money, and who often fail to provide any remedy when their failings are brought to light.
It is essential that effective measures are in place to tackle the problems of cowboys, so we published our consultation paper on the subject earlier this month. The paper sets out several options for tackling the problem and providing better information to the public on reputable builders. We intend to drive forward those proposals, but we shall do so very much in the light of the evidence submitted to us as a result of the consultation.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton intends to submit his views and those of related organisations; I very much look forward to reading them. We shall take full account of his views and others submitted in the consultation, to ensure that we have really effective measures to tackle the problem of cowboy builders.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Hospital Waiting Lists

Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received regarding hospital waiting lists in Wales. [37999]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): Other than in respect of individual cases, none. Reducing the time people have to wait for treatment remains a priority for the Government. The additional £25 million for waiting lists announced in the Budget will be targeted at reducing lists to below the levels applying when we took office.

Miss McIntosh: Bearing in mind his reply, will the Minister explain to the House today why, according to his statistics given in answer to a question on 23 March, waiting lists in Wales have increased by 3,000 since the Labour party came to office? What additional resources and new money is the Minister able to put at the disposal of the health service in Wales in order to reduce waiting lists and meet the pledge that Labour made at the election one year ago?

Mr. Griffiths: Quite simply, the £25 million that was announced in the Budget in March was made available specifically to deal with the fact that waiting lists in Wales are growing. The hon. Lady may be aware that admission rates in Wales are 11 per cent. higher than those in England because of the poorer health of the Welsh people. In the longer term, we are planning to tackle more fundamental issues to ensure that the people of Wales become healthier.

Mr. Llew Smith: As to the future of hospitals, is the Minister aware that hardly an individual or organisation in north Gwent supports his proposed reconfiguration of NHS trusts? Is the Minister willing to recognise that Blaenau Gwent has some of the worst health problems not just in Wales, but in the United Kingdom, and that we should be accorded trust status like that which he has granted, quite correctly, to Cynon Valley?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend will know that we are committed to ensuring that Blaenau Gwent, like other parts of Wales, gets a better health service as a result of our trust reconfiguration exercise. One purpose of that exercise is to ensure that money previously spent on administration can be spent directly on patient care. My main concern is that the proposals for Gwent will show where the benefits lie for all people in Gwent—especially those with the poorest health, such as my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Is the Minister not being dreadfully complacent about the health of the people of Wales? He responded to my hon. Friend the

Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) by saying that admission rates were 11 per cent. higher in Wales than in England because of the poorer health of the Welsh people. On 5 February, a Green Paper addressing the health of the people of England was published, and another Green Paper was released dealing with the health of people in Scotland, yet we still await the publication of a Green Paper addressing the health needs of the people of Wales. Is it not about time that the Government began to direct their attention towards the health of the people of Wales? Can the Minister tell the House this afternoon when we can expect the publication of that Green Paper?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we have the legacy of 18 years of Tory rule to overcome. We made £9.5 million available to deal with winter emergencies, which went extremely well in Wales, and, since then, we have provided another £25 million more than his Government wanted to provide. The Green Paper will appear before the next Welsh questions.

European Structural Funds

Ms Jackie Lawrence: If he will make a statement on the renegotiation of the European structural funds. [38000]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): As Welsh gross domestic product per capita is extremely low by comparison with both the European Union and Great Britain averages, the Government believe that Wales is entitled to secure the maximum benefit from the structural funds after 1999.

Ms Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that Wales does not lose out to other parts of Europe in the current negotiations on structural funds? Will he reaffirm to the House his determination to pursue GDP as the basis for reform, bearing in mind the fact that my constituency and a great proportion of Wales suffer some of the lowest incomes in Europe, particularly as a result of the failures of the previous Government?

Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that Wales is one of the poorest regions of Europe, and that must be recognised in Brussels as it is recognised by the Government. The Welsh GDP per capita is just 80 per cent. of the European average, and the UK stands at 96 per cent. That indicates the leeway that we have to make up. With regard to my hon. Friend's constituency, Pembrokeshire's GDP per capita is extremely low, sitting at just 60 per cent. or so of the European average. We must get the aid from Brussels to which we believe we are entitled.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister share my view that the period for regional funds between 1994 and 2004 is possibly the last for which Wales may get significant benefits from European funding? If that is the case, does he share my view that the responsibility of the Government and of all of us who represent seats in Wales is to press for objective 1 status for those parts of Wales that would qualify? If the Minister agrees, can he tell us when the application will go in and whether Eurostat has agreed the new NUTS 2—nomenclature of units of territorial statistics—areas for Wales?

Mr. Hain: I agree that this is a critical time for Wales to make sure that it gets the benefits to which I believe


we are entitled under the structural funds review, because thereafter, enlargement will inevitably compress the availability of funds even to Wales. With that in mind, we have submitted a detailed and compelling case for west Wales and the valleys to the Office for National Statistics in order that Wales's case may be argued in the strongest terms.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: To reinforce my hon. Friend's case, is he aware that the Cardiff business school estimates that in Merthyr, for example, GDP is only 67 per cent. of the European average and that in Blaenau Gwent, it is 62 per cent? Will he carry the message from the House and from Welsh Members to the European Commission that we will not tolerate the changes that are proposed and the destruction of European structural aid to communities such as ours?

Mr. Hain: I will certainly convey to all the appropriate authorities the fact that areas such as Merthyr and other valley constituencies, in common with west Wales constituencies and authorities, have very low levels of GDP per capita—some, like Merthyr's, standing at about 60 per cent. of the European average. That reveals the compelling nature of the case that the Government are advancing for Wales to receive objective 1 status for west Wales and the valleys. There are such low levels of GDP that we need and are entitled to European structural funds to give those areas the support that they need.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Will the Minister give the House and the people of Wales a categorical assurance that the outcome of the negotiations on the European structural funds will be as good for Wales as that achieved by the previous Conservative Government—[Interruption.] It is a very simple question. If the outcome is not as good, will he undertake that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, if they are both still in office then, will resign?

Mr. Hain: I wonder where the right hon. Gentleman has been for the past few years. It was under the previous Conservative Government that Wales lost out. The representations made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) dismally failed to present the case for Wales. An editorial in The Times this morning reads:
The more immediate question is whether anything at all lurks inside the Conservative cranium.

Mr. Chris Ruane: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the structural funds were revisited previously under the Conservative Government, a senior civil servant in Brussels said that north Wales had the worst deal in the whole of Europe? Will my hon. Friend outline the measures that he is taking to ensure that north Wales, which includes the county of Conwy which has the lowest foreign inward investment level in Europe, the lowest pay in the United Kingdom and the lowest gross domestic product levels in Wales, does not lose out again?

Mr. Hain: I fully understand the points that my hon. Friend is making, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and for Conwy (Mrs. Williams). The argument advanced on behalf of Conwy and Denbighshire is very strong. That is why we

have included both areas within the claim that we are making for recognition for NUTS 2—nomenclature of units of territorial statistics—status for west Wales and the valleys. My hon. Friend presents a strong argument that north-west Wales has lost out progressively over the past 18 years of dismal Conservative Governments. That is what has strengthened the region's case for support from Brussels.

Mr. Ancram: We shall wait and see.

Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman says that we shall wait and see. We are pressing Wales's case extremely hard and the Government recognise that it is extremely powerful.

Farming

Mr. David Curry: What meetings he has had recently with farmers' representatives to discuss problems in Welsh farming. [38001]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): Since taking office, I have met farmers' representatives on 15 formal and countless informal occasions to discuss the problems facing Welsh agriculture.
The right hon. Gentleman may like to know that the Welsh Grand Committee next meets in Carmarthen on 5 May to discuss the rural economy in Wales. I am making arrangements for the representatives of the three farming organisations in Wales to present evidence to hon. Members prior to the sitting of the Committee. Such an innovative procedure will, I believe, help to inform the Welsh Grand Committee's debate on this crucial issue and demonstrates this Government's commitment to an open and inclusive approach.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) will accept my invitation to be present on that occasion.

Mr. Curry: Is the Secretary of State aware that farmers at that meeting are likely to raise the report produced by Professor Peter Midmore on the particular importance of upland livestock compensatory amounts to Welsh farmers? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the sentiments of that report, which are that a consistent and realistic level of support is essential to maintain agriculture on the hills of Wales? Does he also agree that, last year, the Government failed abysmally to meet those expectations? What will he do in subsequent years to ensure that he fulfils his own claims that the Labour party is the party of the rural economy?

Mr. Davies: I am familiar with Professor Midmore's report. In fact, I met Professor Midmore a couple of weeks ago to discuss it in detail. I am pleased to say that he and I had an amicable discussion and agreed on the best way forward for Welsh agriculture.
The right hon. Gentleman was, I believe, a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from 1989 to 1993. If there is any one crisis hanging over British agriculture, it is the spectre of BSE, which brought a once-great industry to its knees. It has cost British taxpayers about £3.5 billion. The right hon. Gentleman


was the Minister who, above all else, characterised the then Government's inept handling of BSE by his own incompetence and complacency.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend inform us what progress is being made in getting the beef export ban lifted in Europe?

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this matter. I know that he has made many representations to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He will know that many representations have been made at a European level. We were successful several weeks ago in getting the Irish scheme off the ground. That will be of great assistance to exporters from Ireland and, I believe, prove to be the crucial breakthrough in our discussions at a European level.
My hon. Friend will know that we have successfully introduced the passporting scheme and that the Government, rather than individual producers, are footing the bill for it. I have no doubt that that scheme will forward our efforts to remove the beef ban. I assure my hon. Friend that if the previous Government had been more constructive in their approach to Europe, we should not have had such difficulties over the past 12 months in reassuring our European Union partners that we want to work with them in a spirit of co-operation to complete the central objective of our policy, which is the removal of the beef ban.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I welcome the fact that the farming unions will give evidence to the Welsh Grand Committee in a few weeks' time. What will be the Secretary of State's answer when he is asked why there has been a cut of £80 million from forthcoming agricultural spending in Wales?

Mr. Davies: As the hon. Gentleman knows, he is referring to the expenditure report that was produced several weeks ago. If he looks at it carefully, he will see that last year's expenditure was inflated by a one-off payment to the upland areas of Wales. That, together with the increase that was made available as part of the beef compensation package, has not yet been included in next year's expenditure. The other element of the equation is the sheep special payment which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, depends on market prices. It is a compensation payment and at this stage, it is not possible to calculate what it will be. The Government's total approach to agriculture shows that we have a real commitment, and that is demonstrated by our discussions in Europe, by our commitment to pay additional compensation to relieve the present crisis in the livestock industry and by the way in which we are promoting other initiatives, such as the agri-environmental scheme and our various food promotion schemes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that in the debate, the Government will be able to demonstrate that we recognise the real crisis in the Welsh countryside. We are doing what we can in a practical way to help to ameliorate those difficulties.

Mr. Michael Ancram: In relation to the invitation to the Welsh Grand Committee to which the Secretary of State referred, may I say that I first received it through the offices of the press, secondly by fax and lastly by letter? If he checks his fax machine on his return

to his office he will find an answer. Does he not agree that, as a result of reduced Government support, falling prices and the high value of the green pound, which has been brought about by five interest rate rises since the election, farm incomes in Wales are dropping catastrophically, by as much as 60 per cent. in some cases? Does he not realise the scale of the crisis for farmers and their families, and for the Welsh rural economy? When will he and the Government stop mouthing complacent platitudes and playing design games with the Welsh flag and do something real for the farmers of Wales?

Mr. Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman reflects, he will realise that he is putting an unusual proposition. It is that in our period in office of less than 12 months, we should have been able to resolve all the difficulties over which he and his colleagues presided in government for 18 years. It is not possible to turn around those difficulties in less than 12 months. I acknowledge, as I have always acknowledged, the difficulties that face all those who live and work in rural Wales. That is why we are striving to put in place the long-term mechanisms that are necessary to deal with those problems. I commend the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru for ensuring a proper debate in the Welsh Grand Committee. The constructive way in which those two parties are viewing events in Wales is markedly different from the mindless opposition of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Health Action Zones

Ann Clwyd: If he will set up health action zones in Wales. [38002]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): The inequalities in health status in Wales are a major concern, and action across a broad front is required. I shall publish a Green Paper shortly which will propose a range of new measures which take account of the circumstances in Wales. In England, health action zones will cover populations of around 200,000. In Wales, it would not be appropriate to work on such a scale, but in our Green Paper, we will bring forward alternative proposals tailored to meet Welsh needs.

Ann Clwyd: I am sure that that announcement will be welcomed in Wales as much as it was in England. It brings an holistic approach to poverty and deprivation in Wales as elsewhere. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that these matters will be given even greater consideration in the future Welsh assembly, especially if 50 per cent. of its membership are women.

Mr. Griffiths: We are very much aware of the health needs of Wales. My hon. Friend's constituency is an area of high need. I hope that our Green Paper will bring forward some fresh thinking on how to tackle these problems, and that the local health groups proposed in our White Paper will make a significant contribution by bringing together the health service and local government to think about health care issues.

Mr. John Bercow: How does the Minister expect to be able to save money by reducing


bureaucracy in the health service in Wales when measures such as health action zones will create more bureaucracy, not less?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to my answer. I said specifically that we would bring forward proposals tailored to meet Welsh needs. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the thrust of our proposals in Wales is to reduce bureaucracy and administration, and to use that money in patient care. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, we reckon to save £50 million.

Cetaceans

Mr. Norman Baker: What recent assessment he has made of the cetacean population in Cardigan bay. [38003]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): Recent studies indicate that the most common cetacean species in Cardigan bay are the harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin. Other species recorded are the common dolphin, Risso's dolphin, the white-sided dolphin and the killer pilot and minke whales.

Mr. Baker: Given the importance of the area to those various species, does the Minister agree that, given the June deadline, it is crucial that the Government make it a special area of conservation under the EU habitats directive?

Mr. Griffiths: I can give the hon. Gentleman the good news. We have already put forward a proposal for Cardigan bay to be a special area of conservation.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Is the Minister aware of any reported sightings of that other endangered species, namely, elected Tory Members of Parliament for Wales? Is he aware that there is a danger of that species being reintroduced to the native Welsh habitat following the elections in May to the National Assembly for Wales?

Mr. Griffiths: Although it is likely that in Wales they may become a land creature again, there is no possibility that they will end up in Cardigan bay. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. A telephone is ringing.

New Deal

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What assessment he has made of the impact of Government policies on the employment prospects of the under-25s in Wales. [38004]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Under the new deal, modem apprenticeships and our planned national traineeships, young people in Wales now have the best opportunity in generations to get and keep a job.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Does the Minister regret the fact that the new deal has now been launched nationwide without sufficient time having been given to examine the

experience in pathfinder areas such as that in Wales? Does the Minister agree with the Labour Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment who warned at a recent public hearing with the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights that, owing to the problem that new dealers might take away job opportunities from those already looking for work, after six months, "new deal" might become a dirty word on the street?

Mr. Hain: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been. The pathfinder experience in south-west Wales has been very good. We found 1,500 jobs pledged for youngsters who previously had no hope of a job. A total of 350 employers have given those pledges and there is a real prospect now of people being given opportunities when they never had them before. We are confident that 17,000 places on the new deal will be filled in the coming year and that will give a fantastic opportunity of a lifetime to people whom the Conservative party abandoned over 18 miserable years.

Mr. David Hanson: Does my hon. Friend agree with the manager of my local Employment Service who said that the new deal in Wales was the best scheme that he had ever seen in the 35 years that he had worked in the service? Will my hon. Friend comment on the number of people who are taking up the new deal in Wales and on the number of companies that are involved? When is the new deal likely to be extended to over-25s in Wales?

Mr. Hain: The new deal will be extended to over-25s in June. That will give them an opportunity from which young people throughout Wales now benefit by the thousand. The new deal is a very exciting programme for young people and businesses, and, for the first time in a generation, it gives Employment Service officials the opportunity to help people into work, rather than simply push them aside and off the claimant figures. The new deal is a unique combination of skills, high-quality training and high-quality job experience. That should be supported, not denigrated, by every hon. Member.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I wish the new deal well, but does the Minister accept that there are two prerequisites for it to succeed? The first is that there are long-term permanent jobs into which people can slot after having their training and going through the new deal. The second is that there is an adequate number of proper trainers, which is being undermined by the reduction in money that is available in Wales for training and enterprise councils. How will he ensure that those two requirements are met so that the new deal will succeed?

Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman rightly raises specific points. The first issue is whether there is a permanent job at the end of the new deal programme. If the employability of those in Wales who are participating by the thousand in the new deal is increased, as it will be, their prospects of a job will be greatly enhanced. In addition, businesses in pathfinder areas that have taken on new deal participants find that the programme gives them opportunities to develop their businesses and thereby offer those individuals permanent jobs.
On training, we have injected additional resources through the new deal. That should make up any fall in overall provision through the TECs.

Mr. John Smith: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Liz Marsh of the Employment Service and Vale of Glamorgan council on the launch of new deal contracts last Friday, which will result in 160 under-25-year-olds getting jobs in my constituency? Will he join me in thanking the 73 employers who have expressed an interest in taking part in the new deal?

Mr. Hain: Yes, I will join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those involved in the Vale of Glamorgan and throughout Wales. Conservative Members should join us in ensuring that the new deal works. Labour Members, in common with some Opposition Members, are taking part in launches to get businesses involved and to ensure that the new deal is a success throughout the country. Conservative Members should be doing the same, rather than moaning and groaning about the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that this Government are giving young people.

Development Board for Rural Wales

Mr. Andrew Lansley: What representations he has received regarding the decision to merge the Development Board for Rural Wales with the Welsh Development Agency.[38005]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): I have received a large number of representations from hon. Members, organisations in mid-Wales and members of staff of the agencies, all of which underline the importance of the new agency's role in developing the rural economy. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the task of developing the rural economy will be a priority for the new organisation.

Mr. Lansley: If the Secretary of State is so enthusiastic about devolution and an assembly for Wales, why has he decided to wind up the Development Board for Rural Wales, rather than give the assembly the opportunity to decide whether the DBRW should have a continuing role—given that there is every reason to have a body that is devoted to the particular and often acute needs of rural Wales?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman will understand that it was the people of Wales on 18 September who endorsed these plans. We spelled out our proposals for the merger of the Welsh Development Agency and the DBRW when we put those plans to the people in the referendum. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the House of Commons gave overwhelming support on Second Reading to the Bill that makes provision for the merger, and he will know that his party gave those plans tacit approval when it abstained on the Third Reading vote a couple of weeks ago.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the debate last night in the other place, which gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading. The report of that debate shows that there is broad support, across all the parties, for an essential programme that will be vital to the Government's task of modernising the British constitution.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)— who is making a good recovery following his accident—and I are very concerned that only one member of DBRW staff has been appointed to the powerhouse agency? It looks as though rural affairs will be dominated by Cardiff. Will he assure me that the expertise of more members will be used?

Mr. Davies: I have sent a card, on behalf of all at the Welsh Office, to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, and I look forward to his early return to Parliament. It was typical of the hon. Gentleman that he should spend his Easter in the daring way that resulted in his accident. I hope that he will be back with us shortly.
I assure the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) that there will be a rural policy unit within the powerhouse agency, and that it will be based in the old DBRW area. I have no intention of allowing the new agency to ignore its responsibility for driving forward the rural economy. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the rural policy unit will be not only based in the old DBRW area but staffed by people who understand the problems of the area. The unit will play a crucial role in influencing the attitude of the whole of the new powerhouse agency, bringing economic prosperity throughout Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Ms Linda Perham: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 April.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I will have further such meetings later today.

Ms Perham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's efforts in the cause of peace in both Ireland and the middle east. As he knows, there is a large and thriving Jewish community in Ilford, North. In the light of the 50th anniversary of Israeli independence, what are my right hon. Friend's hopes for the summit in London on 4 May and for the reinvigoration of the peace process and a real prospect of stability and security for Israel and her neighbours?

The Prime Minister: The present stalemate in the middle east process is obviously dangerous for those immediately concerned, for the region and for wider stability throughout the world. I am pleased that Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Arafat have agreed to come to London for meetings on 4 May with the United States Secretary of State. I plan to meet both of them as well.
We will play any role that it is helpful for us to play, although I stress again that we should not cut across anything being done by the United States. I believe that, if there is good will on both sides, progress can be made
If progress is not made, the dispute will continue to threaten not only the stability of the middle east, but the stability of the entire world.

Mr. William Hague: I want to take this first opportunity in Prime Minister's questions to welcome the agreement in Northern Ireland and to congratulate the Prime Minister on the role that he played in it. I also pay tribute to everyone who has shown courage and integrity in the search for peace. I reiterate the Opposition's support for the Government in the difficult job of turning the agreement into a lasting peace.
Against that background, will the Prime Minister give reassurance to those of us who are naturally uncomfortable with the early release of prisoners? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that before a terrorist prisoner is freed, it will be established that he does not pose a risk to the public? Will the right hon. Gentleman also assure us that, in the proposals for the Royal Ulster Constabulary—whose courage has been so great for so long—we can be confident that the integrity of policing in Northern Ireland will never be undermined?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support and, indeed, for his offer that we campaign together in the referendum, which I welcome. I also pay tribute to the former Prime Minister for the work that he did in bringing about this settlement.
The right hon. Gentleman raised two specific points. First, I can confirm that prisoners who are a threat or who are attached to organisations that are carrying on violence will not be eligible for early release under this proposal. Those who are released are, in any event, released on licence, and that point must be well emphasised.
Secondly, in respect of policing, I again pay tribute to the work that the RUC has done. I emphasise absolutely that there is no intention whatever of having anything other than a police force that can carry out the work of policing. The desire is simply to make sure that it can do so with the support and active consent of all sides of the community in Northern Ireland. There is no question of having paramilitaries running around organising local police establishments, and so on. I am happy to lay those fears to rest and to assure people that the independent commission will look at all these things in the context of making sure that we have a successful police service for all the community in future.

Mr. Hague: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that reply. Naturally, we are also concerned that no decommissioning of terrorist weapons took place in the run-up to the agreement. I welcome the undertaking given by the Prime Minister in a letter to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that no Member of the New Assembly will be appointed a Minister until any paramilitary associates that he may have had have engaged in substantial decommissioning. Is the Prime Minister happy to reaffirm that reassurance today?

The Prime Minister: Yes. We said that we want the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. The agreement provides for the process to start immediately and, indeed, to be completed within two years. Meanwhile, it would obviously be a travesty of democracy if parties associated with paramilitary

organisations held Executive office in the assembly while they continued to be engaged in or to threaten terrorism. It is precisely for that reason that the agreement provides that those Members of the Assembly can be excluded or removed from office if they fail to live up to their commitments. We have made it clear that we will keep these provisions under review and strengthen them if necessary.

Mr. Hague: While again welcoming the Prime Minister's reply and accepting that this undertaking cannot be given effect under the heads of agreement, may I ask whether he will consider incorporating the undertaking in the legislation setting up the assembly, which is to be introduced later this year? Such an intention would again have the very strong support of the Opposition.

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. We made it clear in the letter that I wrote to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, that if, over the first six months or so, these provisions are shown to be ineffective, we shall support changes to give them real teeth. The way to do that is obviously a matter for consideration, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of the necessity for people to be sure that those who hold Executive office in the assembly are genuinely committed to peace. If they are not genuinely committed to peace, it will be very difficult for people to work with them in any event, but it is important that we have that clearly established right at the very beginning.
Once again, I pay tribute to the courage of the leader of the Ulster Unionists in particular in the work that he has done to bring about this agreement. We have an agreement that in the end can work only if all parties decide to make it work. There is a limit to what we can do, in the House or elsewhere, if people are not genuinely committed to a package that is balanced and sensible and based on principled work. I believe that we have such a package. We have designed the structure, as it were, for peace, but now people have to get on and build it.

Mr. Ernie Ross: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his initiative and on managing to get the Israeli Prime Minister and the Palestinian President to come to London to restart the peace talks? The best prize that those who want to support Israel can give Israel and the Palestinians is an arena in which they can talk to each other as a means of moving towards a resolution of the problems between the two countries. The reward for Israel is peace with all its Arab neighbours; will not that reward come about only with the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside the Israeli state in that area?

The Prime Minister: As I said a couple of days ago, the final status talks will examine what it means to give the Palestinians self-determination, in which statehood is an option. Many people in Israel are discussing that. Progress is possible, but interim issues—not just economic issues but the issue of redeployment—have to be resolved as quickly as possible to allow the final status talks to get under way. We shall certainly do everything that we can to facilitate that.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The world economic competitiveness league tables published today show


Britain once again near the bottom of the world league tables for education. Does the Prime Minister think that the position will be improved by forcing schools to sack more teachers and having class sizes at a 20-year high and rising?

The Prime Minister: It is precisely because we realise the link between education and competitiveness that we are putting so much more money into education. Not only are we putting in extra resources this year in respect of current spending, but we are putting extra resources into the school building programme and technology for schools. In each case, we are putting in more than the right hon. Gentleman's party ever asked for before the election.

Mr. Ashdown: Of course we know the Prime Minister's familiar claims about the money that the Government are putting into education and health. Frankly, they require a degree of economic manipulation that would make Arthur Daley blush. Let me turn from inputs to outputs and ask the Prime Minister a very simple question: does he really believe that those who voted Labour last year to improve the quality of their child's education seriously expected their child's school to have to sack another teacher this year or for their child to be educated in a class that was too large under the Tories, but is getting larger under Labour?

The Prime Minister: They expected us to keep our commitments, and we are doing that. We are not merely putting additional money into education; we also got rid of the nursery voucher scheme and replaced it with proper nursery education. We are putting more money into the school building programme than any Government have ever done and we are also ensuring that schools get the help that they need with new technology. Of course it will take time, but it is utterly irresponsible for Liberal Democrats to say that all the problems not just in local government but in respect of the national health service, education, pensions and the environment can be tackled by a possible 1p extra that they may or may not put into the education system. It really is not a serious way of conducting politics and I believe that the public know it.

Ms Sally Keeble: In view of the devastating losses suffered by people in Northampton and elsewhere in the midlands during the Easter floods, including the loss of life, what assurances can my right hon. Friend give people in Northampton and the midlands that lessons will be learned, especially in relation to early warning systems, flood defences, planning issues and the pressing financial needs of people who lost everything during the floods?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can give that assurance. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has already said that local authorities and others facing extraordinary claims as a result of the flooding can make claims under the so-called Bellwin scheme and they will be considered very sympathetically. May I take this opportunity, as I am sure my hon. Friend would wish me to do so, to pay tribute to all the emergency services who worked so hard and well to cope with the emergency that existed?

Mr. Tony Baldry: Is the Prime Minister aware that, when Cherwell district council was

Conservative controlled, the district council precept for band D council tax was just £1? Now, after three years of Labour control, it is a staggering £55, with no improvement whatever in services. Given what Labour has done to Oxfordshire county council this year—the average council tax will be £100 more than it was two years ago—with a double-digit increase in council tax bills at the same time as cuts in social services and education, does the Prime Minister find it surprising that in a number of wards in my constituency the Labour party is not daring to put up candidates for the local government elections on 7 May?

The Prime Minister: I think that it was unwise of the hon. Gentleman to raise his last point, as, throughout the country, the Conservatives are failing to put up candidates in more than double the seats than is the case for the Labour party. He will be aware that the average council tax is lower in Labour areas than in Conservative areas.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in contrast to what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, there is widespread delight in the south-west at the extra Government money for schools, including brand new schools in my constituency and in Torridge and West Devon? That is after waiting 50 years during which the Tories did nothing.
In the autumn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ruled out the United Kingdom's joining the single currency before the next election except in unforeseen circumstances. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the artificial strength of the pound, possibly for the next couple of years, could represent those unforeseen circumstances?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the first part of the question. On the second part, I believe that the decision whether to join the euro must be part of a longer-term process than the fluctuations in the market value of the pound. Two thirds of the appreciation of the pound happened before May last year. Boom and bust, however, would be the worst possible outcome for industry, manufacturers and others. It is essential that we take the measures both to cure the Budget deficit that we inherited and to ensure monetary stability over the long term. We have done that, which is one reason why long-term interest rates are now below the level that we inherited last May.

Mr. Alan Clark: I must warn the Prime Minister that this question is not answerable with the term "boom or bust" anywhere in the text. When will he extend the clemency that, at his instructions or with his consent, has been granted to murderers and terrorists in Northern Ireland, who have been released from long prison sentences, to British service men, who, believing themselves to be either defending their comrades in arms or acting in the service of the Crown, remain in prison?

The Prime Minister: As the Secretary of State said on Monday, we are considering the cases of the two people to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. I believe that what we have put forward on prisoners is right and justifiable as part of the wider deal and package. As we


made clear, there is no question of allowing anyone out, even on licence, unless we are satisfied that that person does not pose a threat to security or safety.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: In connection with the middle east peace summit in London, does my right hon. Friend agree that, in seeking to reopen the Oslo peace process and to regain the trust of the Palestinian people, it is crucial that the Israeli Government give firm assurances that they will desist from the policy of building and expanding the illegal settlements?

The Prime Minister: Again, as I said yesterday, it is important that there is time out on unilateral actions, including settlements. It is now essential that we reach the point at which, on 4 May, we see exactly what the differences are on these interim agreements, which cover the range of issues, and then, as soon as they are resolved, proceed to the final status talks. In the end, that will be the only way—in respect of settlements or anything else—in which we can provide stability in the middle east in the long term.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Although it would be churlish, Prime Minister, not to wish you well in your efforts for peace in Northern Ireland, despite one's reservations about their success, perhaps you—not only as Prime Minister, but as a lawyer—will answer the following points. First, is it open to one party to a multiple agreement unilaterally to give assurances about the agreement's alteration, whether on decommissioning, the review of the police or the release of prisoners? Secondly, are you aware—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member should say, "Is the right hon. Gentleman aware".

Mr. McCartney: I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker.
Is the Prime Minister aware that Sinn Fein will claim that it is a political party with a mandate and that it is not the IRA and does not possess any weapons? Any suggestion that it should be expelled either from the assembly or from office will meet the same response that was given in relation to entry to the talks: "We are not the IRA."

The Prime Minister: Of course I am aware that that is Sinn Fein's claim. It is precisely because of our position on that issue that it was expelled from the talks for a time, as were loyalist political organisations attached to paramilitary groups. I made it clear, and I make it clear again now, that we will support changes if the existing provisions are not working properly, but the hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise that the package, because it is based on principle, offers the chance of a way forward in Northern Ireland.
The principle is that the basis of consent is secured. There will be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people there—that is, after all, the historical principle for which people who say that they support the hon. and learned Gentleman's position have been fighting for years and years and years—and that principle will be balanced by a proper recognition of nationalist identity and fair and equal treatment for all.
Anyone should be able to recommend that position to their people as a right, proper, fair way forward for the future; and it is the future that we should start addressing.

Mr. Eric Clarke: What efforts have the Government made to alleviate the economic crisis in south-east Asia, bearing in mind the fact that many thousands of workers in the United Kingdom are employed directly or indirectly by companies from that part of the world?

The Prime Minister: We are doing what we can. We are fully engaged in seeking global solutions to Asia's economic problems. We have been movers and motivators behind the International Monetary Fund package of help to some of the south-east Asian economies, which has produced greater stability, especially in Korea. We continue to work with those countries to produce that stability. The crisis in Asia will inevitably have a knock-on effect on all our economies, but we are doing what we can.
We recognise the fact that a large number of Scottish jobs are dependent on those Asian economies and we will use both the European Union and our position as chairman of the Group of Eight countries to try to improve the financial systems in south-east Asian economies. In the end, that will be our best guarantee that the problems can be ironed out and that they can resume the steady growth that benefits us all.

Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister agree with the judgment of the sheriff court in Selkirk that the beef-on-the-bone regulations are a manifest absurdity? Will he repeal this ridiculous ban?

The Prime Minister: No. The reason for the decision was the recommendation of the chief medical officer, who said:
I strongly advise that it be done.
The judgment was based on a technicality and leave to appeal has been given. I do not think that it would be right to act against the representations of the chief medical officer.

Mr. Hague: It is no good hiding behind the chief medical officer. Ministers are paid to make judgments and to take responsibility for them. Is it not the truth that the regulations were drafted in haste and without proper consultation? The Institute of Trading Standards Administration says that the Government have left it to enforce the unenforceable. With a legal touch like that, it is no wonder the Prime Minister gave up the Bar for politics—unlike the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who sometimes gives up politics for the bar.
According to the judge, the Minister of Agriculture has destroyed the present system of meat distribution and undermined the Food Safety Act 1990 in one sentence. How much confidence does the Prime Minister now have in him?

The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman says about the judgment happens to be wrong. It was based on a technicality, and we have been given leave to appeal. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has always said, it is necessary for the ban to


remain until the scientific and medical evidence shows that the threat is receding. In the light of the history of bovine spongiform encephalopathy—the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar with that—it would not be sensible to act contrary to the strong advice of the chief medical officer, which I quoted. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that it would be right, he is not acting responsibly.

Mr. Hague: I asked the Prime Minister about confidence in the Minister of Agriculture, and we have not heard much about that. The ban has been described by consumers as unnecessary, by retailers as ridiculous, by inspectors as unenforceable and now by judges as absurd. Is it not time that the Government exercised a bit of common sense and said that, in a free country, people should choose for themselves?

The Prime Minister: No. If I may correct the right hon. Gentleman: first, environmental officers have not said that they cannot enforce the ban and, secondly, the Consumers Association actually welcomed the decision on it; so he is wrong on both those counts. Thirdly, it is at least arguable—the inquiry will demonstrate this or not—that we are in this mess over BSE precisely because the previous Government failed to act, which has left us with a bill for BSE that is running to £2 billion a year. We are now having to engage in the difficult process of getting that ban lifted. The first part of it is under way in Northern Ireland and I very much hope that, in the next few weeks, we will get the rest of the ban lifted through the date-based scheme. It would not be sensible for us to act against the express advice of the chief medical officer. If the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member had acted a little more responsibly in the early years, we would perhaps not have faced the colossal mess in which the Conservative party put us and from which we are trying to extricate ourselves.

Mrs. Diana Organ: Does the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the new basis for calculating the unemployment statistics? Is that not giving us a true and honest picture of the jobless rate? Does he also agree that that is in stark contrast to the past 18 years, when there were 35 different methods of calculating the rate and the Tories continually fiddled the unemployment figures?

The Prime Minister: Fiddled figures—that brings back happy memories of all those press releases.
It is right that we should make the figures a sensible expression of true unemployment levels and it brings us into line with internationally accepted standards. I am delighted that the Office for National Statistics has done it; it is right and I support it.

Mr. Graham Brady: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Christie hospital, which is the north-west of England's regional specialist centre for cancer treatment, is in the depths of a financial crisis and has had to close down a £1 million linear accelerator machine? Is he further aware that the national health service guidelines recommend that people receive radiotherapy in two weeks and that they are

having to wait five? How does he square that with the priority that he says he is giving to cancer treatment and what is he going to do about it?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps, first, the hon. Gentleman could indicate by a nod of his head whether he supported the spending plans of the previous Conservative Government on the health service—[Interruption.] It is hardly surprising that the hon. Gentleman will not tell us. The Government are putting in an extra £2 billion this year, over and above the money allocated by the previous Government. Obviously, it is important that we carry on making improvements as we can to the NHS, and we are spending far more on cancer treatment than the previous Government. I accept that there is a still a lot more to do, but let us be clear that what we are doing is clearing up what we inherited from 18 years of Conservative Government.

Mr. Clive Soley: At a time when we are trying to encourage responsible citizenship, does the Prime Minister agree that it is also appropriate to support the nations that are trying to deal with any potential threat from the misuse of nuclear material? If we chose to sit on our hands or turn our faces away from the problem, as some people encourage us to do, it would not only set a dreadful example of citizenship but be a terrible betrayal of those other nations that are seeking to deal with that difficult problem.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. May I point out to the House two facts, which have been absent from some newspaper reports today? First, the total amount of intermediate waste that will be added to Dounreay is two drums-worth; 14,000 are already stored there. Secondly, it is quite wrong to say that the United Kingdom alone is taking action. The United States has already taken 350 kg of irradiated HEU.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Highly enriched uranium.

The Prime Minister: The United States has also taken 600 kg of unused highly enriched uranium from Kazakhstan, and Russia has taken 137 kg from Iraq since the Gulf war. [Interruption.] Other European countries are making other contributions. That is why we thought it important to do what we did. As secrecy has been shouted about, I must point out, first, that we have followed the normal rules for transportation of civil nuclear fuel. Secondly, we could not, of course, make an announcement as such, because the reason for our action was the fear of rebels taking over the civil nuclear reactor again. Thirdly, we had already prepared a parliamentary answer, and we shall give full details the moment that the transportation has occurred, which is entirely in line with normal practice.

Mr. John Randall: Is the Prime Minister willing to employ his boyish charm and that engaging smile—I want him to say yes—in talking to the French authorities, to sort them out and to ask them to agree to a fair deal for British fans for allocation of World cup tickets?

The Prime Minister: We are concerned about the situation. I gather that 10 million calls had been made to the French authorities by lunchtime. We are in touch with them about how we can improve both the allocation of World cup tickets and the system of allocation. I cannot offer an instant result, but I shall do my best to ensure that British fans are treated fairly and to improve the system for allocation of World cup tickets. I am sure that

the hon. Gentleman will join me in hoping that, when fans get their tickets and go to the games, they will see victories for British teams.

Mr. David Maclean: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Points of order come after questions, and I have a private notice question.

Nuclear Material (Reprocessing)

Mr. Robert Maclennan: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the agreement to reprocess nuclear material from Georgia at Dounreay.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): I thank the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for his question.
The United Kingdom will shortly take delivery of approximately 5 kg of fresh and spent highly enriched uranium fuel that has been held at a civil research reactor in Tbilisi in Georgia. The Government's decision to accept the fuel was made in support of our policy on non-proliferation and our obligations to enhance security and safety.
The United Kingdom and United States experts who examined the Georgian reactor site concluded that the fuel was inadequately protected. Given that highly enriched uranium of this type is ideally suited for use in a nuclear weapon, it was essential that it was moved to a secure location. The fact that the United Kingdom is taking the material shows the Government's strong commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. We shall be making a significant contribution to international security. Hon. Members will know that the 1996 summit in Moscow reaffirmed the commitment of the G8 countries to take action in support of that aim.
Other G8 countries are contributing to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. The United States, for example, has taken 600 kg of highly enriched uranium from Kazakhstan. Russia has taken 173 kg of fissile material from Iraq since the Gulf war. France, Germany and Canada are involved in projects to convert stocks of excess plutonium from Russia's dismantled nuclear weapons into fuel for reactors.
The Government are determined to demonstrate that we, too, are committed to solving in a practical way the problems of nuclear proliferation. The uranium from Georgia will be held by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at Dounreay. The vast majority will be usable immediately by the authority in its routine production of medical isotope targets, which are a vital component in both the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. This amount will permit the manufacture of an additional 5 million cancer treatments. The spent fuel—of which there is only 0.8 kg—will result, after reprocessing, in a small amount of intermediate-level radioactive waste. As Georgia has no other nuclear material and no facilities for storing waste, the United Kingdom is making an exception to its policy of long standing that waste generated by reprocessing foreign spent fuel should be returned to the country of origin.
The small quantity of waste will be retained in the United Kingdom. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, it will add about two drums of intermediate-level nuclear waste to the existing 14,000 drums at Dounreay. No decision has yet been made on exactly where it will be stored. The House will be advised on that. In accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines, which state that, for security reasons,

movements of nuclear materials should not be made public in advance, we were under an obligation to keep confidential the fact that the material was to be moved from Georgia to the United Kingdom. We intended to inform Parliament of the details of the project on the day that the material arrived. Although, in accordance with the guidelines, we are not at this stage able to reveal publicly the date of the arrival of the highly enriched uranium in the United Kingdom, we shall, of course, notify Parliament on the date.

Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Minister for that reply. While I recognise the nature of the international guidelines to which he referred, with regard to intelligence about the date of movement, does he agree that it would have been better if the news of the agreement had come from the Government directly, not from the columns of the New York Times? Does he accept—I think that he clearly does—that if weapons-grade nuclear material is at risk of getting into the hands of dangerous people, there is a duty on the Government to seek to safeguard it by international collaborative action? While I recognise that the regulators have acknowledged the capability of Dounreay to handle the material safely and adapt it to benign use, including medical isotopes, can the Minister affirm again, in the light of the wild statements that have been made notably by the Scottish National party that Scotland is the nuclear dustbin of the world, that other countries are bearing a much heavier part of the international burden than Britain?
Will Her Majesty's Government seize this opportunity to initiate an open and wide international debate on the need to tackle the danger of unstable and unsuitable reactor systems in the states of the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe, which give rise to concern? In the light of the expertise and resources of the five permanent members of the Security Council, it must make sense to embrace the need to tackle the matter not only in the general terms of the non-proliferation agreement but in detailed terms of particular reactors.

Mr. Henderson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising those important issues. On the question of providing information, I shall not repeat what I said in my statement, but I agree that it would have been better had the matter been heard of first in the House. However, as he and the House will recognise, I cannot control what leaks are given to the New York Times.
On the other points of substance raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I very much agree that it is necessary to take international action to help the countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union to deal with dangerous materials. The burden should be and is being shared internationally: the United States has made a contribution and so has Russia; France, Germany and Canada have indicated that they, too, are prepared to do so. It is important that if we say that we believe strongly in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which this Government do, we are prepared to do what we need to do to help that process to be conducted safely and securely.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Setting aside whether the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) is suggesting that Mr. Alastair Campbell should extend his iron grip to the editorial staff of the New York Times,


does my hon. Friend agree that it is infinitely preferable that this potentially extremely dangerous material is in safe hands in this country where it can be properly dealt with than rolling around the world, with the possibility of rogue Governments, like those of Iraq and Libya, or terrorists getting hold of it?

Mr. Henderson: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend's point. That is also the view of the Georgian Government, who themselves want those dangerous substances to be dealt with safely and securely. They very much welcome the international effort, which includes on this occasion the contribution made by the British Government.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Is not the Minister being complacent about the widespread concern that this serious matter has raised, not so much because of the substance of the matter, but because of the cloak-and-dagger way in which the deal was done and the underhand way in which it has come to light? Is the Minister aware that, although the Opposition will support any reasonable efforts to reduce nuclear proliferation, the way in which this secret deal has been struck is completely unacceptable? Does he recall that, when his party was in opposition, it promised that a future Labour Government would be committed to transparency and openness? Can he tell us what has happened to those promises now? Is that not another example of Labour saying one thing in opposition and doing exactly the reverse in government?
Can the Minister tell us, hand on heart, that if the news had not leaked in the New York Times, the Prime Minister was really intending to announce it, or has the leak necessitated a hasty rethink? Is it not the case that the Prime Minister was not prepared to release the information because he was afraid of the reaction on his own Back Benches? Will the Minister tell us how many other secret deals the Prime Minister has struck with President Clinton and what he hopes to get in return?
Has the Minister taken the trouble to ask the French and the Americans why they refused to take and process the nuclear waste that is now being transported to Scotland? How much more nuclear material has the Prime Minister agreed to take from the former Soviet Union? Can the Minister confirm that the Dounreay plant has both the licence and the technology to deal with this level of nuclear waste? Will he now, at last, tell the House the full terms of the agreement, so that we can make a judgment on its merits, as we should have been able to do at the outset? Finally, will he confirm that, in future, the Prime Minister will remember his pre-election promises and start to act in accordance with the principles of democratic and open government?

Mr. Henderson: I have heard many Opposition questions in 11 years in the House, but I have never heard one as misdirected as that one. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman wants the House to believe that he is soft on terrorism, but what he says is tantamount to that.
The previous Government would know, just as we now know, that there is a serious problem in dealing with these materials in countries such as Georgia. That is why an international agreement was made at the summit in Moscow in 1996, which the then Prime Minister attended,

and at which he endorsed the principles that were agreed. What the Government are now doing is making a contribution as part of that international agreement.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a draft parliamentary answer had already been prepared to give to the House once this matter could be announced to the House, and that those preparations had been made, but a time scale could not be put on it then, and it still cannot.
I am assured by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency that it is satisfied with the work that Dounreay will undertake. I am satisfied that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is perfectly capable of dealing with this substance effectively, and that view is supported in Dounreay.

Mr. Tony Benn: When did the request come, and who made it? Was the International Atomic Energy Agency consulted about the transaction? Was Euratom consulted under the European arrangements?
If it is a fact that the importation of nuclear material without the requirement that the waste be re-exported is to be Government policy, would it not be sensible to allow the House to debate it, as occurred in 1978 when, after the Parker commission, there was a full debate and a vote before the THORP project was established?

Mr. Henderson: The Government were originally approached by the American Government in autumn 1997, to seek a UK Government view on this international problem, which had to be dealt with. Some weeks ago, after considerable consultation had taken place with those involved, the Government decided that the project should be supported. I hope that I have made it clear that this is an exception to UK policy, because of the particular circumstances. The House is, of course, free to discuss the matter in a wider debate on these matters at any time, as appropriate.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister confirm that the Scotland Bill, if enacted, would provide that Members of the Scottish Parliament would not have a competence to discuss in Edinburgh transport arrangements of nuclear waste of this kind? Will he agree to place in the Library a note, setting out in precise terms the agreement struck with President Clinton, and the particulars in which the normal licensing regime has been relaxed?

Mr. Henderson: When I give the House the full information that I have committed myself to give, that information will be part of it.

Mr. Hogg: In the Library?

Mr. Henderson: Any detail that is not announced in a parliamentary answer or from the Dispatch Box will be placed in the Library.
The Scottish Parliament will have legislative and executive competence over the regulation of radioactive discharges—the functions that are currently carried out by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Nuclear energy is, however, a reserved matter, so the Scottish Parliament will have no direct responsibility for the operations at Dounreay, nor for regulating the storage of nuclear material at that site.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on reports that this matter


involved a breach or waiver of some regulation, whereby nuclear material should be processed in the UK only if it is to be transported back to its country of origin? If there was such a breach or waiver of a regulation, does not that reinforce the case for seeking prior parliamentary approval or, at the very least, for a prior statement to be made in the House?

Mr. Henderson: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but two issues are involved. One is security. It would not be possible to return any processed products to Georgia because that would present a security risk. That was not an option. Therefore, if the United Kingdom was to contribute to the international effort, another means of dealing with the products had to be found. It was agreed that an exception should be made to our normal practice in this case. It was not possible to announce the decision in advance, because that would have given notice to potential terrorists in Georgia or elsewhere that there were dangerous materials on their doorstep that could be used to make devastating nuclear weapons. For those reasons, confidential measures had to be taken in advance.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Notwithstanding the Minister's remarks about Dounreay, he must be aware that long-standing concerns about safety standards at the facility are expressed frequently in Scotland. Not five days ago, an article appeared in The Herald in Scotland under the headline, "Dounreay's days as the nuclear dustbin to end", with the sub-headline, "Watchdog bans storage of irradiated waste without means of reprocessing". Given that the reprocessing plants at Dounreay have not been operational for the past 18 months and that, as far as we know, there is no current licence, the waste will not be reprocessed in the near future. In those circumstances, can the Minister explain why the secret deal was done?

Mr. Henderson: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I must state emphatically that Dounreay is not a nuclear waste bin. Dounreay is a modem facility which processes by-products from other important areas. The hon. Lady will know that safety is always at the forefront of concern at Dounreay. Dounreay provides important technology for medical isotopes, which are an important constituent in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. That is just one important task that is undertaken at Dounreay. I think that the hon. Lady should be a little more objective in her consideration.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is it not the blunt truth that some hon. Members have gone over the top on this issue? It is a storm in a teacup: in terms of international waste disposal, we are talking about microscopic amounts of material. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), who led for the Opposition, acted thoroughly irresponsibly by suggesting that the transport of the material across Europe, by sea or by other means, should be advertised internationally before its arrival in the United Kingdom. That is the most irresponsible response to a statement that I have heard since the election last year.
Does not the question of international collaboration point to the need for the international community to get together and find a single international solution to the

problem of nuclear waste disposal? We cannot continue to pick on different parts of the United Kingdom, as Nirex did in west Cumbria, or as was done some years ago at Dounreay, at the sites in Lincolnshire, or in Leicestershire or Bedfordshire about four years ago. I recall also the Billingham argument of about six years ago. We must abandon that approach and find a single international site that will allow us finally to resolve the problem of nuclear waste disposal.

Mr. Henderson: Hon. Members will know that my hon. Friend has considerable knowledge in this area, and that is much respected by the House. He understands the important considerations involved—as did the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, who asked the private notice question. Non-proliferation issues are key matters of international security, and there are ways of carrying through the policy safely and securely. It requires international action and international obligations, and we are playing a major part in that process.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: In respect of the Minister's last comments, it is important to find an international solution to the problem. I hope that the Foreign Office will take seriously the suggestion offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, of further international discussion to clarify the position. On the subject of secrecy, the criticism is not that the details of the transfer were not made apparent, but that the principle of the transfer was not revealed. The Minister should address that issue.
On the specific issue of Dounreay, the Minister's statement makes it clear that not all the material can currently be processed at Dounreay. Can he give us an idea when that material can be processed? If there should be further undue delay, is there a possibility that it may be transferred elsewhere in the United Kingdom, such as to Sellafield?

Mr. Henderson: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it would have been impossible to draw any distinction between the principle and the particular circumstances. All those involved who have any knowledge, and principally potential criminals and terrorists, would know the exact nature of the problem if a major debate were opened up on the issue. The hon. Gentleman will understand that.

Mr. Taylor: Rubbish

Mr. Henderson: it is not rubbish. As members of the previous Government will understand, that would become known in those circles in countries such as Georgia.
On the question whether the spent fuel will be reprocessed at Dounreay, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that that is the intention. I cannot say when that will take place, as that is an operational matter. On the question of storage, that requires further consideration.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: As I have told the House before, I was once upon a time a radiation biologist. I have also been a campaigner in an election in a constituency that was dominated by the atomic energy industry. That experience taught me that the industry


cannot, does not and will not accept the public's perception of the risk, and equally that the public will never accept the assurances that the industry gives about the measure of the risks. More openness is needed.
I am sure that the action that the Government have taken in accepting the material has decreased the risk to the world as a whole, at the expense, perhaps, of a slightly increased risk to the UK. I do not believe that the public will understand the trade-off that was necessary there.
I strongly urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the sort of international response suggested by some of my hon. Friends. We need a Kyoto-like conference between producers of waste, reprocessors of waste, Governments and environmentalists, in order to get a worldwide approach to the issue. At present, the British Government have the standing in the world to lead that effort.

Mr. Henderson: That was a knowledgeable contribution from my hon. Friend. I agree that there is a need for public education. The public have a right to know what is happening in their nation, on their behalf and, if they happen to live in Dounreay, on their doorstep. A wider debate on these matters is needed, and I support that.
I can tell my hon. Friend that there was a recognition in 1996 at the G8 summit in Moscow that international action was needed. Britain was represented at the time by the previous Government. This Government have made it clear to our partners in G8 and elsewhere that we are determined to follow a policy that is rigorous in pursuing non-proliferation. That means that there must be international action, collaboration and obligation.

Mr. David Chaytor: After Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and a series of nuclear accidents, some of which were made public and some of which were concealed in this country and abroad, it is not surprising that the public are sceptical about the claims of the nuclear industry concerning their own safety.
I welcome the statement by my hon. Friend this afternoon, but will he endorse the various comments that we have heard about the need for wide public debate about the future of nuclear waste disposal, and the need for an international agreement to solve a growing international problem? Can he give us an assurance that the shipment from Georgia is a one-off, without prejudice to any future shipments? Does it provide a precedent for the future?

Mr. Henderson: I have made it clear in response to other questions that there is an international obligation, which my hon. Friend mentioned and to which the Government are committed. There is a need for international action. I agree that there should be as wide a debate as possible on these matters, and the wider that debate, the more it will help people to recognise the important obligations that we all have, and the important work that is carried out by those in Dounreay on behalf of us all.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the Prime Minister's failure to make a statement on his recent visit to the middle east? When the Foreign Secretary similarly failed to make a statement a short while ago, you will recall that he sought to justify that on the basis that there had been no change of policy. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) raised a point of order on that occasion and observed that there was no basis for that assertion, you robustly agreed with him, Madam Speaker.
Is it not the case that, on all precedent, after a visit of such importance, the Prime Minister should come to the House to account to it for the outcome of that visit? Is it not the case also that his failure to do so, particularly after the copious press briefing that has taken place, illustrates yet again the Prime Minister's utter contempt for Parliament?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have a hunch—usually I do not work on hunches—that there will be several points of order on this matter. I shall take them one after another and then deal with them all at the same time.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) by making a further suggestion. It is clearly a problem that the House is not having Ministers before it to account for their overseas visits. One must assume that that is deliberate Government policy. One way in which you could deal with the problem, Madam Speaker, is to convene a Speaker's Conference, so that we might determine the criteria that should govern the making of statements to the House.

Mr. David Maclean: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. It is on the same subject. It was clear that the Prime Minister wanted to get some soundbites across on the middle east peace process today. You will have noticed that three questions were asked by Labour Members. Two of them were laboriously read out and the third was slightly more spontaneous. Those questions enabled the Prime Minister to make some comments on the middle east peace process. Do you not agree that the House deserves a full and proper statement rather than soundbites and detailed press briefings?

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. May I support the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in his wish that there had been a statement, as if there had been such a statement, it would have enabled the House to bestow on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the praise that is appropriate for his superb statesmanship?

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. In the light of everything that you


have already heard, could you give an idea whether, if I and other colleagues tabled a private notice question on this matter for tomorrow, that PNQ would be accepted, so as to help the Prime Minister's office?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not a fact that over the years that you have been in the Chair as Speaker, and before that as Deputy Speaker, there have been many occasions when hon. Members such as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), when sitting on Opposition Benches, have demanded that the Prime Minister of the day, the Tory Prime Minister, make a statement about this, that and the other? We were flattened by the Tory Government and told to mind our own business.
The truth is that there is a bout of hypocrisy on this matter on the Tory Benches. If there had been a statement, I do not think that there is any doubt what the outcome would have been. If I had been Prime Minister, I would have had a statement. I would have allowed hon. Members to congratulate me on walking on water. All that my right hon. Friend has done is to save some parliamentary time, to get the Northern Ireland peace agreement through the House, for which he had some responsibility as well. He could have had a statement about Northern Ireland. The truth is that the Tory representatives are full of hypocrisy. It is time that they went into the Library and checked the record.

Madam Speaker: The House is well aware that it is for Ministers and not for the Speaker to determine whether a statement should be made. Of course, major developments in Government policy should always be reported to the House first, and there will be many occasions when it will be appropriate for Ministers to make statements following a visit overseas. In the latter case, it is for the Minister to decide whether, in all the circumstances, a statement is appropriate.
I do not believe that a precedent has been created by not making a statement today. On this occasion, the Prime Minister decided not to make a statement, and he was entitled to take that decision. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked me to call a Speaker's Conference. The Speaker does not call such a conference: it is the Prime Minister who does that. I hope that the House is now properly informed on that procedure. I was also asked about a private notice question. I do not give hostages to fortune. Hon. Members should try me out.

BILL PRESENTED

REGISTERED ESTABLISHMENTS (SCOTLAND)

Dr. Lynda Clark, supported by Mrs. Rosemary McKenna, Mr. Desmond Browne, Mr. David Stewart, Mr. Frank Roy, Miss Anne Begg, Ms Sandra Osborne, Mr. James Wallace, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Douglas Alexander, Mr. Russell Brown and Mr. John Home Robertson, presented a Bill to add to the classes of establishment which require to be registered under section 61 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed [Bill 176].

Children's Nurseries (Safety)

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Children Act 1989 to improve the registration and inspection procedures in nurseries by introducing stricter safety guidelines for registration and more frequent and unannounced inspections.
I am grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity to highlight the issue of child care in pre-school nurseries. An increasing number of pre-school children are attending day nurseries as the Government provide more places. It is estimated that there are currently 5,700 such establishments.
I was elected to improve education and increase access to nursery care and education. The advantages of nursery provision in terms of improved education and in allowing parents to return to work have been well documented, and I welcome the Green Paper proposals. However, parents must feel confident about the care that their children will receive, especially when it is often the first time that parent and child are separated.
There is growing concern that, with the rapid expansion of early-days care, safety is being compromised in the rush to provide places. A recent BBC "Panorama" documentary entitled "Nursery Care on the Cheap" demonstrated some of the worst cases of failure of care. Inadequate supervision and poor facilities are putting children's lives in danger. My constituent Catriona Rae experienced the greatest of tragedies when on 8 July 1997 her 20-month-old son Alex drowned in a 20 ft by 10 ft ornamental fish pond at the Hilltop Bunnies nursery in Belmont, Lancashire. On the day that her son died, only one qualified member of staff was present instead of the legally required three, and one of the staff who was registered with social services had never worked at the nursery.
While the other children were playing, Alex wandered into an area of the nursery that was neither licensed nor fenced off and he was found dead in 8 in of water in the tarpaulin that covered the pond. He had gone unnoticed for at least 10 minutes. I have learned of other examples of nurseries throughout the country in which the standard of care and supervision has been shockingly deficient.
Part X of the Children Act 1989 sets out the framework for the registration and inspection of day nurseries and entrusts local authorities with carrying out those procedures. Guidance is offered to authorities in Department of Health circulars. That Department was responsible for administering the Children Act, but that responsibility was recently transferred to the Department for Education and Employment, as day nurseries are now being considered within the remit of early-years education.
In Department of Health circular LAC (93), the previous Government, in an attempt to increase the number of places in day nurseries, suggested that the guidelines governing registration should be relaxed. The circular acknowledges:
Guidance issued by the Department does not prescribe legally required standards for registration … registration should be granted unless a local authority is satisfied that the applicant is not fit to look after children.
The circular permits nurseries to open after an initial inspection and sets a time limit for them to make any necessary changes before further action is taken, even if those nurseries are unsafe when they first accept children.
The circular was dated January 1993, and Alex Rae died in July 1997. It is evident from that that the current legislation is insufficient. Local authorities may choose to interpret the guidelines as they see fit, and the issuing of a circular can alter the entire interpretation of the Act.
The Bill would change the situation. I should like to see a system of national registration and qualification that is administered uniformly throughout all local authorities. Surely there should be national standards, with inspectors trained by the Health and Safety Executive.
Social services departments should have to follow legally binding procedures, with an initial inspection containing specific safety checks. All that must be adhered to before a nursery is allowed to open. Records should be published of all initial inspections, and registration should be granted only if the local authority is completely satisfied that every guideline has been followed.
The penalties for breach of the regulations should be increased. The Hilltop Bunnies nursery was fined just £4,000 for a breach of regulations. If the penalties were increased, it would encourage nurseries to adhere to safety regulations.
The Bill seeks to amend the system of inspection for nurseries. Surprisingly, day nurseries are not subject to the same number of inspections each year as facilities for other vulnerable people such as the mentally handicapped or the elderly. Social services departments are required to inspect nurseries only annually, and notice must be given beforehand. That gives nurseries time to prepare for the inspection which, inevitably, results in an inaccurate picture of the everyday running of the nursery. Nurseries have been known to draft in extra staff for those occasions, to meet the minimum staff-child ratios, and specific care is often taken to remove hazardous objects that might otherwise remain.
The Bill proposes to increase the minimum number of inspections to two in order to bring it into line with other caring establishments. After all, why should the safety of a child be less valued than that of a vulnerable adult? Social services departments should be required to visit the nurseries without prior warning, which would increase the incentive for nurseries to follow guidelines and to maintain the highest standards throughout the year.
The Bill proposes to make a few minor changes to the existing legislation, yet it would immediately ensure that children were safer in day care. I am grateful to the 112 hon. Members who have offered their support to early-day motion 848, which recognises the need for a fundamental review of the legislation in the light of the needless death of Alex Rae.
Since I tabled the Bill, the Government have announced the publication of a consultation document entitled, "Early Education and Day Care", which looks at the whole issue of child care in pre-school settings. I welcome that initiative and will be looking carefully at the proposals. I hope that my Bill will pave the way to improving safety in children's nurseries and will ensure that at least something positive comes from the tragic and needless death of my constituent, Alex Rae.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. Frank Cook, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Ms Christine Russell, Ms Candy Atherton, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. David Amess and Mr. David Chaytor.

CHILDREN'S NURSERIES (SAFETY)

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Children Act 1989 to improve the registration and inspection procedures in nurseries by introducing stricter safety guidelines for registration and more frequent and unannounced inspections: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 177].

Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill (Programme)

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill:

TIMING OF PROCEEDINGS

1.—(1) Proceedings on the bill shall be completed at the sitting on Wednesday 22nd April.
(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement of proceedings on this motion.
(3) Remaining proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion seven hours after the commencement of proceedings on this motion.
(4) Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at the sitting on 22nd April.

2.—(1) When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put,
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill; and
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the chair whether or not notice of an instruction has been given.

(2) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question; and if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

QUESTIONS TO BE PUT

3.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; and
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion for a new Clause or Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) If two or more Questions would fall to be put by the Chairman under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions.

MISCELLANEOUS

4. If at the sitting on 22nd April—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, and
(b) proceedings on the Bill have begun before that time,

the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

5.—(1) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.

(2) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(3) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment.

6. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

7.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If at the sitting on 22nd April the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that, although the agreement that was reached on Good Friday is not an end in itself, it is extremely important, because it represents the best opportunity for a generation to achieve a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. That is why this specific motion is before us.

When the agreement was reached, it was welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is extremely important that we retain an all-party approach to this issue, which is one reason why I am so pleased that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who represents the Liberal Democrats, have agreed to sign the programme motion.

At the time of the agreement, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Conservative party leader, said:
This Agreement is perhaps the best opportunity that we shall ever have to secure a new beginning for Northern Ireland.

The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said:
We have got an agreement which stretched far wider across Northern Ireland than we could possibly have imagined".

The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who cannot be here because of other commitments, said:
We have laid the foundation for a healthy, vibrant democracy to replace the stagnation of the last three decades.

That was why, following the widely welcomed statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Monday, I announced a change of business to take this Bill through all its stages today.

On Monday, the Secretary of State outlined the basis of the agreement, and indicated the various parts of it that would require action by the House. Today, the House has its first opportunity to play its part in facilitating the agreement. Later tonight, the House will be asked to approve orders for the provision of the referendum and for the winding up of the forum, but first we ask the House to take all stages of the Bill today. I know that that is unusual, but, as hon. Members will know, it is not unprecedented.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), will deal in detail with the merits of the Bill when he opens the


Second Reading debate shortly. The longer we spend debating the programme motion, the less time we will have to consider the Bill in detail. I want to say simply why it is appropriate that the House should give the Bill priority and treat it in this unusual way, taking all stages in one day.

As I say, that is not unprecedented. The House can respond to emergencies. Only two weeks ago, we considered the Criminal Procedure (Intermediate Diets) (Scotland) Bill, but, of course, this is a much bigger Bill and I cannot rely just on precedent. The House has a responsibility to act swiftly.

On Monday, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said:
There may be an agreement on paper … but it is with the hearts and minds of the people … that the challenge will lie."—[Official Report, 20 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 490.]

The House clearly cannot legislate for hearts and minds, but it does have a responsibility to do everything it can and to move as quickly as possible to facilitate the delivery of the agreement, and the opportunities in it for the people who are most affected to express their views not only in the referendum but in the elections.

The timetable for the referendum and elections is tight, but that timetable was decided by the agreement on Good Friday, and we in the House must do all we can to maintain the momentum. That is the will of the House, and I hope that we can proceed by general agreement.

I acknowledge that there is some concern on the part of some Members; I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has already expressed his. Of course he is right to say that we do not usually take Bills in this way, but these are not usual circumstances, and, as the Secretary of State said on Monday, this is a unique agreement, born of a unique set of negotiations and circumstances. The House has a responsibility to act quickly, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk and others who have given their support for dealing with the matter in this way.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: On Monday, I was happy to express the Opposition's total support for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the statement she made. Later that day, I was also happy to give our support to this unusual way of dealing with unprecedented need. I reaffirm that support.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: This is indeed an unusual procedure, and I am against it. I am against asking this House to enact an important piece of legislation in a constrained and hurried way. I am not against the agreement. I accept that there are many unpalatable things about it, but I also accept the view that it must be taken in the broad, looking at the alternatives. Viewed in that way, I support the agreement. I will also support such legislation as may be necessary to give expression to the agreement—but I am opposed to this timetable motion.
I want to do two things—first, to draw attention to the nature of the timetable motion; secondly, to emphasise that we are depriving ourselves of the ability properly to

address a number of questions that need to be asked. The timetable motion gives us, in effect, four hours to debate Second Reading. That is simply not sufficient for such a Bill.
Much worse, the House will then go straight into Committee. Usually, there is a gap between Second Reading and Committee stage, which enables hon. Members to consider what has been said on Second Reading and to receive representations from outside the House on the Bill's clauses. We are about to deprive ourselves of that time for reflection.
Furthermore, we are depriving our constituents and the wider community of the ability to influence the thinking of hon. Members on the terms of the Bill. More than that, we are actually limiting the time spent in Committee. Usually, the House could spend as much time as it wished in Committee, subject to timetable motions, yet today we are being asked to constrain the House and to deal with all the procedures on the Bill within seven hours. That is thoroughly bad practice.
The Report stage, which usually exists when dealing with an important Bill, has been removed from the procedure on this Bill, so the House will not have the opportunity to amend the Bill if it be amended in Committee. We will have put that outside our ability. Again, that is thoroughly undesirable.
Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members will say that, if there are any glaring anomalies, they can be dealt with in the other place. That is an illusion. The House knows that those on the Government Front Bench will be extremely reluctant to bring the Bill back to the House with Lords amendments, so they will do their utmost to prevent any amendments from being made there, however respectable the arguments for them may be. That is why I am against the process.
In a sense, I am making a general argument, but it is also a particular argument relating to the Bill. I will not go into the pros and cons of the Bill's contents, because that is a matter for Second Reading. However, it is right to identify one or two questions. We should at least ask ourselves whether it is right effectively to deprive the House of the ability to amend.
I do not believe that the Bill is self-evidently perfect, and that it should proceed into law as it stands. I want to highlight—I shall do no more than that—some aspects. First, there is the term for which the assembly will be appointed. Nothing in the Bill time-limits the assembly. It is true that it may be limited by function, but it is not limited by time. In a sense, we could be creating a long assembly, in the way that our predecessors created the Long Parliament. That is a matter for debate. Then there is the question whether there should be an amendment.
Secondly, what about vacancies? The Secretary of State has reserved to herself the ability to determine how vacancies shall be filled, whether they shall be made up by the electoral process or by appointment. True, that is subject to the affirmative procedure, but surely it is the kind of thing on which the House may wish to express an opinion and then perhaps amend the Bill.
Thirdly, we know from the Bill that the procedures of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which govern membership of this House, are being applied with some relatively minor modifications to the assembly. It is for question whether it is right to import that Act to the


assembly. Again, it is a matter which needs to be debated in some detail, so that the House can, if necessary, amend the Bill.
Fourthly, the Secretary of State has in the schedule reserved to herself the right to determine what salary, if any, Members of the Assembly should be paid. That money comes out of public funds, and I believe that the House should have the opportunity to determine those sums, and to specify them in the Bill. However, we are effectively depriving ourselves of that ability.
Finally, and perhaps most important, I must mention the appointment of the Presiding Officer and his or her deputy. The Secretary of State has reserved to herself in the schedule the power in the first instance to appoint the Presiding Officer and the deputy. It is for argument whether the House might wish to include in the Bill a provision that Presiding Officers and deputies who are associated with organisations that have not delivered on their commitments are ineligible to serve as such officers.
I am not saying that the points I have made are right or wrong; I am merely saying that there are serious issues that ought to be debated in the House, that we should have the opportunity to debate them in the usual way and then amend the Bill.
I know that the big battalions are against me. When I see cross-party support for a measure, I know that my chances of making any progress, in any sense probably, are slight. It is not my intention to detain the House, because I know that this time is being taken from that allowed for the substantive debate. I remind the House that the same applies to the time taken for Divisions, so if anyone decides to dissent by voting, the time taken reduces that available for debate.
For general and particular reasons, we should not accept the motion. I hope that hon. Members who reflect on parliamentary procedure and who feel that I am right will protest this process, even if they feel that they can only do so privately.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I may have reached a different conclusion from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) as to the nature, if not the desirability, of the agreement, but I do not dispute the logic of his remarks about the procedure on which the House is about to embark. Indeed, it is grossly unfair that we will be punished for objecting. The time we take to put down a marker about the House's departure from standard procedure is to be taken out of the time that we have to debate the Bill as a whole. In other words, the longer we object, the worse things become. That cannot be right.
I make it clear that my colleagues and I believe that the procedure in question is wholly unacceptable, and it is unacceptable for the very reason that the Leader of the House told us we should accept it. She said that these are exceptional circumstances, and that this is a very important matter. Of course it is, and it is for that very reason that we should be taking the utmost care—we are dealing with a matter of the utmost importance and moment.
The Order Paper states that a number of amendments have been tabled. They are all intelligent, studied and considered. Indeed, amendments are still being tabled,

as many of us did not know until late last night that the business was to be conducted today. Some of us did not see the Bill until this morning, so we did not have the opportunity to table amendments until then. We would have welcomed more time to do that, but the Government ram stam to get the business through the House with the same dilution of democracy that is depicted in the agreement. It does no service to the House or the people of Northern Ireland that such important business should be dealt with in such a disgraceful manner.
If the Government wanted to ensure that the measure went through, but also wanted to protect the rights of hon. Members to table considered amendments, they could have allowed the business to continue through the night if necessary. Although we do not enjoy staying up all night, many of us would have been prepared to do so rather than allow the Bill to go through with many of our amendments not being called. Let us be clear that some amendments will be passed over because of the guillotine, and that cannot be good for democracy or the House of Commons.
Like the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I have done my arithmetic. It is clear that there is little chance of the House reversing the Government's decision. However, the Government should think again, as their message is very clear to the people of Northern Ireland: "It does not matter what rules and procedures have been standard practice in the past, or whatever the people of Northern Ireland may think. We are pushing this through, come what may."

Mr. Phil Willis: The Liberal Democrats support the motion, and want to get on to the substance of the Bill. The people of Northern Ireland, and indeed the United Kingdom, want progress to be made in Northern Ireland. I hope that, by the end of today, progress will have been made.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Sometimes progress can mean two steps forward and three steps back. I am not altogether surprised by the guillotine motion. There was a time when Opposition parties automatically voted against guillotine motions, so that they would have more time to examine Government legislation. However, I suspect that those on the Conservative Front Bench have it in mind that they have a debt to pay.
I recall that there was a guillotine on the legislation in respect of the last Northern Ireland assembly, and that it was carried only when the Opposition of the day decided not to vote against it. We knew that the 1982 assembly would fall because it was based on false foundations, and I regret that today we are moving in the same direction.
On Saturday, a woman said to me, "Were you at the wake last night?" I looked at her in amazement for a moment, and she said, "It is the death of democracy." The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) spoke about wanting to move on to examine the legislation, but there is not enough time to do so. I hope that we are not slipping into carelessness knowing that, traditionally, when the House panics into a cross-party agreement, ultimately we reap the whirlwind and have to rectify it.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I shall be brief. The contents of the Bill are of profound importance to the people of Northern Ireland. Some feel that the agreement is deeply divisive, but even those who support it should avoid at all costs giving the people of Northern Ireland the impression that the legislation is being conducted in an oppressive, coercive and undemocratic manner.
The suggestion that a measure of such profound constitutional importance should be hustled through the House unconsidered or ill considered because of the lack of time will simply deepen the suspicions of the people whom this legislation will most deeply affect that they are no longer considered first-class citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but may be dealt with in the same way as those outside the law.
All hon. Members, regardless of their feelings about the benefits or the detriments of the Bill, should consider carefully that, if democracy and the reputation of the House are to be served, and if the agreement and the measures that are required to implement it are to be a success, democracy and justice must not only be done, but, in accordance with the best practice of the House, be manifestly seen to be done.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I support the motion. My inclination is always to oppose a guillotine, so I understand the arguments of hon. Members from the Conservative and other parties that there is not sufficient time—I have sympathy with that point of view.
We are facing arguments, however, from those who have had the opportunity over these past two long years to take part in every stage of framing the agreement and to debate in depth every word and phrase in that agreement. For reasons known to themselves—they are entitled to their views—they did not avail themselves of that opportunity. It is remarkable that not one of the Unionist Members arrayed before us today took part in the final decisions, or even the earlier decisions, on the Bill.
Whatever the merits of the guillotine, there can be no justification for opposing it on the ground that it will not give the people of the north of Ireland and their representatives the opportunity to make their case. That opportunity existed for two years. Some refused to take it, and shirked it, whereas others faced up to their responsibilities. For that reason, on behalf of my party, I support the guillotine motion.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) did not stick to the facts. I was at the talks on the condition that they would not proceed until the arsenal of murder weapons was surrendered—that commitment was given to me in Downing street again and again by the Prime Minister of the day. I was also told that, if only some arms were given up, those parties involved would have to pay over every month—if they did not, they would be put out of the talks. That was the basis on which the talks were to take place.
When my party went to the country, we made it clear that if decommissioning did not occur—I am talking about decommissioning of all arms used by terrorists,

whether they be on one side of the fence or the other—and there was an attempt to bring IRA-Sinn Fein to the table my party would not be present. We fought the election on that manifesto. We are not like some parties in the House that tell the electorate something and then go back on it—we made our position perfectly clear.
It is ironic that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh should say that we should have joined the talks, as I received a letter from the Secretary of State saying, without any explanation, that my party would not be allowed into the talks even when the final decision was to be taken.
The House can go ahead and ram these measures through. I have seen that happen before. I remember the Prime Minister of the day, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), telling me that he had made peace when he did away with Stormont. I said to him, "You have had a Christmas party, but you will not have one any longer," and we know what happened.
The House is supposed to be democratic, and even those who are opposed to the legislation should be allowed to discuss it with the same amount of time that is given to any other part of the United Kingdom, especially when so many issues are at stake. Where are the friends of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who sat in the talks until the end, and were hailed as statesmen? Where is the leader of the Official Unionist party, his deputy or his chief security man? Why are they not here to defend their position? We saw how they ran out of the forum on Friday, and were not prepared to take part in debate.
Those who cannot debate an issue and run away need not hurl insults at those who bring up issues that they do not like to be brought up. It is mean and contemptible that representatives of Northern Ireland are not permitted to discuss under the usual circumstances a matter that has divided and polarised Northern Ireland more than any other. Hon. Members can close their eyes and ears, but, at the end of the day, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said, the people of Northern Ireland will have to reap the whirlwind of their sowing.

Mr. Roger Stott: I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). This business has been going on for an awfully long time—I am thinking particularly of the negotiations and discussions of the past two years—and an agreement was reached on Good Friday this year. That agreement lightened the hearts of everyone, both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Robert McCartney: indicated dissent.

Mr. Stott: I heard what the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) said earlier.
We have gone through this process for a long time, and we now have an agreement between the Irish and British Governments and the leadership of the Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party about how to move forward. I never thought that that would happen in my lifetime, having spent so much time in Northern Ireland in the bad days.
We can debate the agreement on Second Reading, but we must allow my Government to facilitate it through the House so that we can get to the stage of a referendum. The hon. and learned Member for North Down says that it is unacceptable. It is all right for him to sit there—I see that he has crossed the Floor from where he sat before—and say that the agreement is not acceptable, but we shall see whether it is accepted in the referendum by people in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
If I were a gambling man, which I am not—my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh is, and always has been—I would bet that this agreement, which was discussed and painfully negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, will be accepted by the people of Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I will be brief. Obviously, the shorter the time spent on this motion, the longer there will be to discuss Second Reading. I will leave those points that should be dealt with on Second Reading to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who is to reply later.
I will pick up on one or two of the contributions made to the debate, in particular that of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who picked up on my words that this was an unusual process. It is indeed, but taking all the stages of a Bill in one day is not unprecedented. He has voted for such procedures on some occasions, so he is not justified in suddenly objecting today simply because we are doing so.
The Bill is not complex, and the issues contained in it, which relate to the provision of elections, were the subject of much discussion in the talks process before Good Friday—one reason why we can make good progress today, I hope. I will not go in detail into the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised, because my hon. Friend can deal with them on Second Reading. If the House took the right hon. and learned Gentleman's advice and delayed discussions of the Bill, he would have to think carefully about the consequences of the delay. I do not think that that would be an attractive proposition.

Mr. Hogg: I have no objection to proceeding with Second Reading today in the ordinary way. The right hon. Lady could bring the Bill back to the House for the Committee stage next week if she wanted. Why is she not prepared to do so, and to allow a seven-day gap between Second Reading and Committee?

Mrs. Taylor: There is sufficient agreement, and there has been sufficient discussion of the Bill during the talks process, for us to proceed as we intend, and I am glad that the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is nodding his head in agreement.
As regards the comments made by some hon. Gentlemen—

Mr. William Ross: Did the right hon. Lady say a few moments ago that there had been

sufficient discussion of the Bill during the talks over the agreement? Was the text of the Bill available there? If so, we Ulster Unionists were not aware of it.

Mrs. Taylor: I think that the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I said that the issues had been discussed. The House is being asked to facilitate elections that, when the referendum is held, I believe the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland will say they want to take place. Some of the comments made about the Bill, especially from the Bench opposite, were really made not in objection to the programme motion, but to the fact that we have the Bill and the agreement at all. There is no way in which we can hope to satisfy—or would want to satisfy—downright opponents of the agreement.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is it not correct that any issues discussed within the talks were confidential and not available to the public? The great distinction between what took place in those talks and what takes place here is the public nature of debate in the House.

Mrs. Taylor: The agreement was published, and there was a full statement on it in the House on Monday, when those hon. Members who were present could question the Secretary of State and took that opportunity. On that aspect, it is important to remember, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, that, in two long years, Members opposite have had every chance to take part in the discussions and have not done so. On that basis and against that background, I do not think that we should be put off making progress today.
Again, I thank the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), for the views that they expressed. Clearly, while the House cannot itself solve the problems of Northern Ireland, it can and should do all it can to ensure that the hope that was generated by the agreement on Good Friday is turned into real achievement. The motion and the Bill will be a step in the right direction.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 11.

[Division No. 251]
[4.49 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Battle, John


Ainger, Nick
Bayley, Hugh


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Beard, Nigel


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Alexander, Douglas
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Allan, Richard
Bennett, Andrew F


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joe


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bercow, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Berry, Roger


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Best, Harold


Arbuthnot, James
Betts, Clive


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Blackman, Liz


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blunt, Crispin


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Body, Sir Richard


Austin, John
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Norman
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Barnes, Harry
Bradshaw, Ben


Barron, Kevin
Brady, Graham






Brand, Dr Peter
Fox, Dr Liam


Brazier, Julian
Galloway, George


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon
Gibb, Nick


(Dunfermline E)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Browne, Desmond
Goggings, Paul


Browning, Mrs Angela
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Burnett, John
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Burstow, Paul
Gorrie, Donald


Butler, Mrs Christine
Grant, Bernie


Byers, Stephen
Gray, James



Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Green, Damian


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Greenway, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Grogan, John


Cann, Jamie
Gunnell, John


Casale, Roger
Hague, Rt Hon William


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Mike (Weaver vale)


Clappison, James
Hammond, Philip


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Heald, Oliver


(Rushcliffe)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Clelland, David
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coaker, Vernon
Hepburn, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Colman, Tony
Hill, Keith


Connarty, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Corbett, Robin
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hoey, Kate


Corston, Ms Jean
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cran, James
Hope, Phil


Cranston, Ross
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Crausby, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howells,Dr Kim


Cummings, John
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Dafis, Cynog
Hutton, John


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Iddon, Dr Brian


Darvill, Keith
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davidson, Ian
Jamieson David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Jenkin, Bernard


Dawson, Hilton
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dowd, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Drew, David
Keeble, Ms Sally


Drown, Ms Julia
Keen, Alan(Feltham & Heston)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Edwards, Huw
Khabra, Piara S


Efford, Clive
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ennis, Jeff
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Evans, Nigel
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fallon, Michael
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Laxton, Bob


Follett, Barbara
Leslie, Christopher


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Letwin, Oliver


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Levitt, Tom


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Liddell, Mrs Helen





Lidington, David
Randall, John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Rapson, Syd


Linton, Martin
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Livingstone, Ken
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Livsey, Richard
Rendel, David


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Robertson, Rt Hon George


Llwyd, Elfyn
(Hamilton S)


Loughton, Tim
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Luff, Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Rooker, Jeff


McAllion, John
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Rowlands, Ted


McDonagh, Siobhain
Roy, Frank


McGrady, Eddie
Russell, Bob (Colchester)



MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
St Aubyn, Nick


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Salter, Martin


McIsaac, Shona
Sanders, Adrian


MacKay, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sheerman, Barry


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


MacShane, Denis
Shepherd, Richard


Mactaggart, Fiona
Shipley, Ms Debra


McWalter, Tony
Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Malin, Humfrey
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mallon, Seamus
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maples, John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Spellar, John



Martlew, Eric
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Spring, Richard


Maxton, John
Spring, Richard


May, Mrs Theresa
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Meale, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stevenson, George


Milburn, Alan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mitchell, Austin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moore, Michael
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morley, Elliot
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Streeter, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mudie, George
Swinney, John


Mullin, Chris
Syms, Robert


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
(Dewsbury)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Norris, Dan
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Oaten, Mark
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Todd, Mark


O'Neill, Martin
Touhig, Don


Organ, Mrs Diana
Trickett, Jon


Ottaway, Richard
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pickthall, Colin
Tyler, Paul


Pike, Peter L
Vaz, Keith


Plaskitt, James
Wallace, James


Powell, Sir Raymond
Walter, Robert


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wareing, Robert N



Prescott, Rt Hon John
Watts, David


Purchase, Ken
White, Brian


Quinn, Lawrie
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Radice, Giles
Whittingdale, John






Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Woolas, Phil


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


(Swansea W)
Wyatt, Derek



Yeo, Tim


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wills, Michael
Mr. Greg Pope and


Winnick, David
Mr. John McFall.




NOES


Beggs, Roy
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Forsythe, Clifford
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Rev. Ian Paisley and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. William Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill:

TIMING OF PROCEEDINGS

1.—(1) Proceedings on the bill shall be completed at the sitting on Wednesday 22nd April.

(2) Proceedings on Second Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement of proceedings on this motion.

(3) Remaining proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion seven hours after the commencement of proceedings on this motion.

(4) Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at the sitting on 22nd April.

2.—(1) When the Bill has been read a second time—

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put,
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill; and
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the chair whether or not notice of an instruction has been given.

(2) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question; and if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

QUESTIONS TO BE PUT

3.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; and
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion for a new Clause or Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) If two or more Questions would fall to be put by the Chairman under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions.

MISCELLANEOUS

4. If at the sitting on 22nd April—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, and
(b) proceedings on the Bill have begun before that time,

the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

5.—(1) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.

(2) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(3) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment.

6. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

7.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If at the sitting on 22nd April the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Northern Ireland (Election) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and, on Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the House some details of the overall settlement reached in Castle buildings on Good Friday. Like them, I pay tribute to all those involved, especially the leaders of the political parties and the talks delegates, who spent more than two years arriving at the agreement that was forged and settled just over a week ago. Underpinning the settlement is the principle of consent, and the triple lock of the parties, Parliament and the people is an essential element in the agreement.
Later tonight, we shall consider two orders: the first provides for a referendum on 22 May; the second brings the life of the Northern Ireland forum to an end after it meets for the last time on Friday. The Bill provides for elections to a New Northern Ireland Assembly to be held on 25 June—subject, of course, to a yes vote in the referendum the month before.
We need the Bill now so that the Northern Ireland parties can prepare for the elections in June and engage in the forthcoming referendum campaign. I do not want to go into the details of the previous debate, other than to say that this is only one of two Bills that will deal with the settlement and the agreement.
If on 22 May the people, as I hope, wish and pray they do, say yes to the agreement, the House will be able to consider a much larger Bill—a major constitutional Bill—to implement the entire settlement. The Bill will make necessary legal provision for the setting up of the north-south ministerial council. It will deal with human rights and equality matters. It will deal with the transfer of all six Northern Ireland Departments to the new Administration. It will, in effect—

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Murphy: Of course.

Mr. Robinson: Will the Minister be helpful by giving the House an assurance that there will be no guillotine whatever when that occurs?

Mr. Murphy: It is not my business to speak on behalf of the Leader of the House, but I can say that in recent months the House has met through the night a number of times and given detailed scrutiny to the Welsh and Scottish Bills. I have not the slightest doubt that every opportunity will be given to hon. Members here and the other place to deal effectively and properly with what will be a major constitutional Bill, with similar status to those relating to Wales and Scotland.

Dr. Godman: These are early days and I am trying to be helpful, but if, as I sincerely hope, we get a yes vote

on 22 May, will the Secretary of State seriously consider commissioning an international architectural competition for the design of the new assembly building? [Laughter.] I do not know why there is laughter from the Opposition Benches. I remind my hon. Friend that an international competition is now taking place for the design of a Scottish Parliament and that President Clinton and Congress may well offer to contribute to the building of a new Parliament in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Murphy: That is a very interesting idea. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was shadow Heritage Secretary she took a great interest in architectural matters, but I must tell my hon. Friend that the matter will be for the assembly to decide. I know from experience in Wales that these are not easy matters to consider, and I believe that that is a matter for the assembly to consider, when it is set up.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have read the document, and it tells me that the Secretary of State says where and when the assembly will meet—and yet the hon. Gentleman now tells us that we shall have a choice in the meeting.

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the Bill sets up what we describe as the shadow assembly. If there is an election on 25 June, as a result of a positive vote in the referendum, of course a place must be found immediately for the assembly to meet to conduct its initial business. That is a matter for the Secretary of State, initially, to decide, but the ultimate home of the assembly must be a matter for the assembly itself—as it will be in other parts of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) asked me whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would institute a competition among architects. I can give an absolute assurance that she will not.
The Bill refers to what has been termed strand 1 of the talks and of the settlement, but the agreement is a package, covering relations north and south, relations east and west and other matters. Even without the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, of which we are all aware, the Bill would be in line with the Government's policy on devolution.
It is right and proper that power comes closer to the people of Northern Ireland, in any event; it is right that the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland is addressed, in any event; but it has a special significance in Northern Ireland because I believe the assembly will be a vehicle for change and for reconciliation, as Members of the Assembly will need to work together for the benefit of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland.
For example, positions of executive authority and chairmanships and memberships of committees will be proportional and based on the number of seats that parties win in the election. Key decisions will be taken on a cross-community basis with the need for significant support from both Unionist and nationalist members elected to the body. The most important appointments of


the Presiding Officer, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will have to be made precisely through that method.

Mr. William Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman define what constitutes a key decision?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, that is part of the agreement. A key decision will be defined by a substantial minority of Members in the Assembly, triggering the mechanism by which the assembly will examine major decisions such as the election of the Presiding Officer and the Budget. The agreement outlines in some detail a facility, which is also in the major constitutional Bill, that refers precisely to the way in which those key decisions are defined.
The Bill provides for a shadow assembly that will have to make key appointments, draw up Standing Orders and deal with the smooth transfer of power to the new institutions. The shadow Minister will be consulted by my right hon. Friend and my other ministerial colleagues in the next few months.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Minister has now turned to the shadow assembly. I am sure that he knows that the Bill does not explain how long that assembly will exist and the circumstances in which it will cease to exist. Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the assembly's existence is time limited and what is the mechanism for bringing it to an end?

Mr. Murphy: The assembly, in terms of membership, will be the same when it has transferred to it the major functions of the Northern Ireland Departments that are now in the hands of my right hon. Friend and other Northern Ireland Ministers. The functions of the assembly will change as a result of the major constitutional Bill that the House must consider in some months. This Bill provides for the elections to the assembly and the functions and preparatory work for establishing the assembly.

Mr. Hogg: As I understand it, the Minister is saying that this body, set up initially as a shadow assembly, will become a full assembly in due course. That means that we must focus on the term of election of individual Members. Does the Minister expect that Members elected to the shadow assembly will become Members of the full assembly? Does he expect that there will be an election in the fairly near future when the shadow assembly will become the full assembly?

Mr. Murphy: No. There is precedent in our system of government to allow for that. Hon. Members may recall what happened—it happened to me 20-odd years ago—when local government in England and Wales was reorganised in 1973. Those who were elected served on shadow local authorities for one year and then assumed the full functions on 1 April 1974. Precisely the same thing will occur in this instance. A four-year term is envisaged in the agreement, but the major constitutional Bill will firm up those provisions.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The agreement appears to provide that one function of the shadow

assembly will be to agree the terms and functions of the north-south ministerial council and the extent of the powers and remit of the cross-border implementing bodies. Is there a time limit within which the shadow assembly must make those decisions, bearing in mind that the shadow assembly will fall if it fails to do so?

Mr. Murphy: The limit is imposed on the basis of when the constitutional Bill is enacted by the House of Commons. That will put into legislation the exact time when the functions of the Northern Ireland Departments will be handed over to the new assembly. At that point, the assembly will cease to be a shadow body and the new assembly will take over.
As to the north-south situation, it was a matter of great discussion and negotiation in the last few weeks of the talks that it was important that Members elected to the Northern Ireland assembly should play a major role in determining the sorts of implementation bodies that would result from a north-south ministerial council. It would not be right for Ministers of this Government, with our Irish counterparts, to deal solely with those matters. It is a matter for those who will be elected in Northern Ireland on 25 June, in consultation with my right hon. Friend and other colleagues.

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. With respect, he has not answered my question. The full constitutional Bill that transfers those powers will do so only if the shadow assembly has fulfilled the criteria that will allow a full assembly to come into being—it must agree the terms and functions of the north-south ministerial council and the terms and remit of the implementing bodies. Is there any time limit on the shadow assembly doing so? Bearing in mind the fact that the north-south ministerial council and the assembly are interdependent, the assembly cannot come into being until the shadow assembly takes that decision. When will the shadow assembly take the decision that will allow for the full constitutional Bill to transfer power?

Mr. Murphy: The deadline is set out in strand 2 of the agreement, which states that the implementation body should be agreed by the end of October. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House today that if he felt that events were not progressing properly on the agreement, the Government will examine the matter in six months' time. That is the date that the agreement envisages. I hope that that helps the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The shadow executive committee will meet the Irish Government in the shadow north-south ministerial council and identify about six implementation bodies, which will be set up by the time the new institutions go live.
The Bill is designed to permit the first election to the new assembly and for the assembly then to begin in the roles envisaged for it in its shadow phase. The major Bill, which we shall introduce later this year, will provide for the agreement as a whole and will replace this Bill's provisions for the conduct of the assembly and regulate future elections. This Bill deals only with the immediate future, as I explained earlier.
Clause 1 sets up the new assembly and states its purpose in the shadow phase. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can refer specific matters to the


assembly-particularly those arising from the agreement. She might refer matters such as the assembly's final Standing Orders and preparations for the British-Irish council and for north-south activity. The parties in the assembly may also agree a work plan on the key issues. The Government will consult as far as possible before exercising the powers under the Bill, and we shall always seek to act in the spirit of the agreement. The schedule makes further provision for the assembly to get off to an effective start.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The Bill does not require the Presiding Officer to be a Member of the Assembly, but I understand that part of the agreement was that that should be the case. I refer hon. Members to the Hansard of the Northern Ireland assembly created in 1973, where they will see that the best part of a day was spent taking points of order regarding the election of the Presiding Officer. On that occasion, the Secretary of State had designated that the Clerk of the assembly should be the Presiding Officer until that election. If the Secretary of State is to make the appointment and it has to be a Member of the Assembly, I believe that the role should be clear from the beginning. Much time and energy was lost on that point on a previous occasion. Notwithstanding what was intimated to me during the last Division, I believe that there is a case for allowing the initial sittings of the assembly to be presided over by a distinguished former Speaker of the House of Commons or the Canadian or Australian Parliaments to ensure that the assembly is well run. It should not founder over issues regarding new Members who are probably not familiar with Westminster practice or with "Erskine May" procedure.

Mr. Murphy: That prejudges who will be elected to the assembly. I have not the slightest doubt that men and women of considerable ability will be elected to it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consult the parties before she makes her appointment. It is implicit in the agreement, and I am sure in the legislation as well, that that person will have to be elected to the assembly.
The Secretary of State will also provide a first set of Standing Orders to give a framework so that business can start reflecting those aspects in the agreement relevant to the shadow phase.

Mr. Roger Stott: I am sorry to be pedantic, as my hon. Friend may think, but as we are reaching the new millennium, there should not be much slack marking in the draftsmanship of the Bill.
Clause 1(2)(b) states that the Secretary of State may refer to the assembly
such other matters as he thinks fit.
It is palpable that the Secretary of State is not a he, but a she. I do not know why we continue to use the male gender in the Bill, particularly when the draft statutory instrument states
therefore, in exercise of the power conferred on her",
referring to the Secretary of State—her, rather than him. I am sorry to be pedantic, but it bugs me that in the Bill we do not recognise the gender of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Murphy: I take the point. I noticed it myself when I looked at the Bill. While my hon. Friend spoke,

I consulted the Secretary of State. In her inimitable way, she said that she was not unduly perturbed by the references.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Nor should the right hon. Lady be perturbed, because under the Interpretation Act 1978, he means she.

Mr. Murphy: I take the point, and it covers any problem that we might have.
Clause 2 provides for elections to be held on 25 June, presuming of course that there has been a positive result in the referendum. As agreed in the talks, the election will be by single transferable vote, which has been used in Northern Ireland for many years for many different sorts of elections, with six Members being returned from each of the 18 parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland. The franchise reflects that used in local elections.
We will make more detailed provision for the election in an order to come before the House in the next few weeks. One outstanding point that we shall need to resolve in that order is the method of filling vacancies in the assembly's membership. In the multi-party talks, some parties favoured doing that by a system of substitutions to preserve the original party balance; others favoured conventional by-elections. We said that we would consult on this, and we will welcome any comments offered to us in the coming weeks.

Mr. Hogg: This is one of the points that I raised in the previous debate. The impact of clause 3 is not clear to me. Does the Secretary of State propose to deal with vacancies on a case-by-case basis, or to introduce a general regime that will provide either for by-elections or for substitution, to be approved by affirmative procedure? In any event, does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us feel that that is precisely the kind of issue that ought to be determined by the House and which should appear in the Bill?

Mr. Murphy: I partly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but not wholly. The determination that my right hon. Friend will make will be based on a general principle, not on individual cases?—that would certainly be wrong. The difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and me would be on the basis of consultation. The difference between this legislation and the legislation used for Wales and Scotland is that this is firmly rooted in the talks agreement—the settlement. In the course of two years, and especially in the past few weeks and months, the matter has raised its head. There is some disagreement among talks participants, as they were called. My right hon. Friend and I must consult more widely and come back to get the feeling of the House.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is it not a fundamental abuse of the democratic principle if those who have been elected and who, by death or disability, are no longer fulfilling the office to which they were elected are not replaced in exactly the same democratic and electoral manner in which they were originally elected? Is there any room for debate about that?

Mr. Murphy: There certainly is room for debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that debate was not to


be lost in the talks that we had over all those months and years. He will also know that there are examples in many other countries around the world that operate on a strictly proportional basis where vacancies are filled by substitution according to the parties.
The difference of view lies in the nature of the proportional system. If it is a strictly additional Member system or a list system, substitution is the only way in which vacancies can be filled. The system that we propose is somewhere in the middle and needs proper consultation. That is why we have decided to talk more about the matter. It is not unusual or unprecedented in other democracies in the western world.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. Does he accept that under the single transferable vote system in a six-Member constituency, if the person who came in last were to die, a different party could come in by another vote? Is that not one of the issues that must be considered?

Mr. Murphy: Indeed. That is why the matter must be examined in more detail.
Disqualification from membership of the assembly is largely the same as that in the House. Peers and citizens of the European Union will also, however, be allowed to sit, and so will members of the Senate of the Republic of Ireland.
The people of Northern Ireland yearn for peace and political stability. The party leaders and the British and Irish Governments, after more than two years of negotiation, have produced a settlement which, if agreed in the referendum, provides the basis for such a peaceful and stable society. The Bill is the beginning of a new era for the people of Northern Ireland who, as they move into the next century, will govern themselves in a new way that embraces the hopes and aspirations of all communities in Northern Ireland. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I confirm what I said at the Dispatch Box on Monday: my party warmly endorses the agreement. We believe that it is only the first stage in a process that we hope will reach a lasting settlement and peace in the Province.
There are already hiccups along the way, and it is regrettable that since the Secretary of State's statement on Monday, Sinn Fein has failed to endorse the agreement, as we thought it had on Good Friday, and that it is apparently advising its supporters to vote yes in the north and no in the south. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and confirms many of our fears about Sinn Fein-IRA. Notwithstanding that, I am sure that the Minister and the Secretary of State will continue to pursue the process and reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. That is the second time he has used the word process. Does he accept that that causes great concern to many people? It was highlighted in an article in The Irish Times yesterday, which stated that the miasma of peace is there to make way for the concept of process. In other

words, we are not reaching a settlement; we are at a staging post in the process towards an ultimately united Ireland.

Mr. MacKay: I shall not pursue the line of argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). The process is long, but I hope that it will reach a lasting settlement. I hope that he will not think it insulting if I say that his argument is mere semantics and that there are more important matters to debate today.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Let us debate them.

Mr. MacKay: Turning to debate them, as my hon. Friend desires, I shall say straight away why we warmly support the Bill and why we have facilitated by an earlier vote the timetable motion and the Bill's being brought before the House so rapidly. We are dealing with an important but small measure and there has been a huge amount of misunderstanding outside the House. Regrettably, some of it has been deliberately created by certain hon. Members. The Bill is not the major constitutional measure that will set up the assembly. It is not the legislation that will change the prisoner release policy in the Province. Those are both major measures, and I am confident the Minister of State and the Secretary of State will want the House to give full time to them.
Let us remind people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere clearly, as the Minister did earlier, what the Bill is all about. The Bill will set up elections for the assembly, assuming that there is a yes vote in the referendum. My colleagues and I are strongly in favour of an assembly in Northern Ireland for reasons that I shall outline. The second purpose of the Bill is to set up a shadow assembly in exactly the same way as shadow local authorities were set up in my constituency about two years ago as part of local government reorganisation. This is not the time or place to discuss in any detail the permanent assembly. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said earlier, there are major issues to be discussed in that context, and that is for another day later in the year.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a Bill that sets up a shadow assembly for Northern Ireland—not a local government body—that in due course is to have legislative and executive powers and will have to decide the functions and contents of a north-south ministerial body and the remit of implementation bodies on an all-Ireland basis is in the context of Northern Ireland not a substantial and significant constitutional matter?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not correct. If I believed that the Bill, in passing through this place at a rapid pace, would set in place the assembly, with all its powers and responsibilities, the Opposition would not have agreed to its going through the House so quickly.
I do not want to repeat entirely what I said earlier, but this is a simple, straightforward Bill which sets up the elections for the assembly and sets up the shadow assembly. There will be a completely separate Bill introduced later. To quote the Minister, it will be a major constitutional Bill. He has given assurances that it will be


considered in the same detail as the devolution measures for Scotland and Wales. I welcome that assurance and I expected nothing less. It would be a disgrace if that were not the position. I am satisfied, and I cannot think of any other reasonable Member of this place who will not also be satisfied.
Going back about 10 years to my days as a parliamentary private secretary to the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), and subsequently as a founder member of the British-Irish parliamentary body, as a Government Whip dealing with the Northern Ireland Office and more recently as the shadow Secretary of State, I have always been privately profoundly uncomfortable with the fact that first-class politicians from both parties have been Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and have served to the very best of their ability, which has often been considerable ability, yet elected Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies have had no opportunity to have a say in the running of the Province. In other words, there has been no possibility of their being Ministers.
Direct rule has had some obvious benefits. I do not believe that the Province would have been secure without direct rule. I believe that progress to reduce sectarian friction and violence has been considerable because of direct rule and because of successive Administrations of both parties. However, deep down, I guess that nearly all right hon. and hon. Members cannot feel entirely comfortable with the fact that Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland have had no opportunity to be directly involved with the administration of the Province.
Bearing in mind the fact that local parties, for reasons that we know—the arguments have been well rehearsed—have little powers in the Province, that is, to quote the Minister, a democratic deficit. We now have the opportunity, through the agreement, to put that right. One of the most attractive, positive and important elements in the agreement is that we shall have an assembly in Northern Ireland, which in due course will approve ministerial positions and will, I believe, remedy the democratic deficit. I believe that the responsibility of those ministerial positions for many politicians from many parties will have a sobering and positive effect on the politics of the Province. I look forward to that.
It would be wrong of me to give the impression to Ministers that we do not have reservations. Our reservations were made absolutely clear by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition from the Dispatch Box only a couple of hours ago. We were pleased with and gained some confidence from the letter that the Prime Minister wrote to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), but we have not yet seen the letter. It needs to be fully in the public domain. I am not criticising the Secretary of State, but she did indicate that it would be. The right way forward is for all this correspondence, if this has not already been done—I hope that I am now out of date—to be placed in the Library. If that has not been done—I can see the right hon. Lady nodding—it seems that it will be.
It is essential that no Member of the Assembly is promoted to be a Minister if the paramilitaries with which he or she is associated have not substantially decommissioned, or have in any shape or form continued with violence. I hope that there is consent across the Floor

of the House that we cannot have such people having executive responsibility in the assembly. It would bring the assembly into disrepute, and I believe that it would bring down the whole process and a lasting settlement.
The Prime Minister's letter gives us some confidence, particularly when we read it in the Library. However, I think that the Minister of State will agree that the letter in itself is not enough. We completely understand that it was not practical to incorporate the letter into the heads of agreement of the Belfast agreement. We do not quibble about that. We are saying that the major constitutional Bill that will set up the assembly must contain appropriate clauses that completely satisfy right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, who I think share the concern that men of violence must not have ministerial responsibility.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Belfast agreement is the document on which we shall have to vote on 22 May—not that document plus the Prime Minister's letters, or an assurance from any Minister in this place? The Belfast agreement is the document. If the Government proceed in the way in which the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, the later Bill will not appear until after 22 May. People will not have an opportunity to consider other documents. They will say, "This document came through my door and I have been asked to say yes or no to it." The hon. Gentleman knows that no statement by any Minister can be added to a document that is to be voted on in a referendum.

Mr. MacKay: It was precisely for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition today sought assurances from the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time. I am seeking the assurance that in his winding-up speech the Minister will say that that will be covered in the legislation.

Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. MacKay: Perhaps I may be allowed to give a comprehensive answer to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).
Such assurances will be helpful and will ensure that a substantial number of voters in the Province who have not yet made up their minds will be able to come to a decision.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have an advantage over him in that I have a copy of the letter. I shall pass it to my hon. Friend as long as he assures me that he will hand it back. The problem is that power will rest with the shadow assembly or the assembly, and the Prime Minister's letter merely states that the Government will support changes in the provisions. However, the power to make those changes lies with the assembly and is therefore outwith the Prime Minister's absolute discretion.

Mr. MacKay: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a valid point, and I promise to return the letter to him. His intervention shows why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I seek additional assurances in legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend is a


distinguished lawyer and I am sure that he would be much happier if such assurances were in the major constitutional Bill and not at the discretion of the assembly.

Mr. Hogg: I do not wish to tease my hon. Friend, but it would be much nicer if the power were in the Bill that we are debating because we are also concerned with the shadow assembly. However, by agreeing to the timetable we have curtailed our ability to amend the Bill.

Mr. MacKay: I have known my right hon. and learned Friend long enough to know that he is perfectly happy to tease.

Mr. William Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacKay: I should like to respond to my right hon. and learned Friend's intervention before giving way again. It is not for the shadow assembly but for the full-blown assembly that is based on the constitutional Bill to decide on Ministers. I am quite happy for that not to be in this Bill as long as it is in the major constitutional Bill.

Mr. Thompson: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that an agreement has been made and signed? The idea that it can be changed without the agreement of all the parties to it is nonsense. Little pieces of paper flying around are meaningless. The hon. Gentleman is being negligent. To say that the agreement can be changed is nonsense. Those who have signed have made their bed and they have to lie on it.

Mr. MacKay: I do not accept that, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why if he will listen. We want provisions to be incorporated in the later Bill so that what he describes as little bits of paper floating around will be in a Bill.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacKay: I should like to make a little progress. Those who are trying to intervene have complained that they do not have enough time for debate. I am anxious not to delay the House so that Members from the Province are able to speak fully on Second Reading and later.
I have two comments that go slightly wide of the Bill, but they cover the overall agreement and are important. First, it is essential to ensure that the agreement releases prisoners prematurely only when we are totally satisfied that they have renounced violence and will not commit further crimes. Perhaps more important, we must be satisfied that those with whom they associate have substantially decommissioned and have given up all forms of violence.
Secondly, we do not quibble with the setting up of an independent commission to look at policing in the Province. Far from being a trap, that will be an opportunity for the RUC, which is one of the world's bravest, most sensitive and courageous police forces. It has nothing to hide and much to gain. At times,

its enemies have attempted to distort its work, but I am satisfied that the independent commission will be an opportunity to put the record straight once and for all.
On Monday, I said to the Secretary of State that any change must have the consent of the great majority of people in Northern Ireland and the consent of the parties in the House. Most important, it must have the consent of those who maintain the rule of law in Northern Ireland, and we shall watch carefully to ensure that.

Dr. Godman: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's positive comments on the independent commission. It might be well served if it were chaired by a Scots judge.

Mr. MacKay: I was happy with the hon. Gentleman's intervention until I felt that I was being drawn on the second part of it. He and I have had many happy debates over the years and I do not think that he would expect me to comment on his suggestion.
The assembly election presents great opportunities, and I wish the people of the Province well in electing its Members. In due course, the assembly will have real powers and responsibilities which I am sure the Members of the Assembly will discharge to the best of their considerable abilities. This is a positive day for democracy in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: It will be difficult to consider the Bill in isolation from the other factors in the agreement. I shall try to resist the temptation to stray into other areas, but if I have to do that I shall try to limit it.
I pay tribute to Ministers in both Governments, the chairman of the talks process and all the people in the other parties for their remarkable tenacity and patience in the talks over the past two years. It is sometimes lost on people that the talks process has been going on for two years and did not suddenly start in the past two or three weeks. That important debate was frustrating and tedious and, at times, it did not seem to get very far, but it was essential to the end product. It was essential that, for the first time, people had a really serious political means by which to begin to gain an insight into not just the other person's argument but their own as well. That was crucial.
It was also crucial that relationships were built up over those two years. I believe that those relationships will stand us in good stead as we go into the next part of the process—the momentous time when the assembly and the north-south and east-west bodies have to be set up. I say that because there will be appreciation within the House of the time and effort that were required. It would be the equivalent of sitting on a Standing Committee for two years non-stop. Those of us who have taken part in Standing Committees for a few weeks realise the amount of detail involved. I pay tribute to all those people for their effort.
I believe that this a turning point. I will make no exorbitant claims, but, as I said on Monday, I believe that it was a mighty victory for the political process over violence, for pragmatism over ideologies which have outlasted their time and, above all, for the confidence and hope that exist in the human spirit to deal with problems that seem insurmountable. A combination of all those



things should allow us to recognise, irrespective of our views on some parts of it, that what was done was done in a way that will be fundamental.
We are dealing with one part of the strand 1 element of the agreement, which is the legislation to set up an assembly in the north of Ireland. I believe that an assembly in the north of Ireland is essential. Coming from my political perspective, that may sound strange, but I shall explain in terms of that perspective. Irrespective of what the constitutional position would be in Northern Ireland, whether we were talking about the north remaining in its present status or changing status to what is termed a united Ireland—if that ever came about—there would still be a need for a separate body in the north of Ireland to deal with the uniqueness of the north of Ireland. My political perspective does not colour my opinion that an assembly is necessary. I believe that its necessity in either set of circumstances is self-evident.
After the propositions document was issued by the two Governments when, for the first time in the talks process, public reference was made to an assembly, I and others were demonised for agreeing with or purporting to agree with a partitionist settlement. That criticism came in stringent terms from those in the nationalist community, largely represented by Sinn Fein. It showed the steps that had to be taken to gain an acceptance for the idea that the assembly is worth while.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Sinn Fein, fronting the IRA and exercising the violence that had a precipitating effect on the agreement, has not signed up to the agreement or accepted the principle of consent, such as it is? It has not agreed through its alter ego, the IRA, to decommission a single gun or a single ounce of Semtex. In those circumstances, is it right to say that this agreement heralds the peace that has produced hysteria and euphoria among many uninformed sections of the community, both on the mainland and in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to stray into other considerations. I should like to answer his question, but I will finish the point that I was making.
When I was demonised over the assembly, one of the allegations was that I was giving power back to the Unionists. Another allegation was that it was a partitionist settlement—that it was reinforcing partition—and that the assembly would, in effect, be an old Stormont. One of the great satisfactions I feel is that it does none of those things. If the aim had been to do any of those things, this legislation would not have come out of the talks.
I shall now deal with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). I note the position of Sinn Fein and have done so for a considerable time. I note also that had its representatives taken their seats in the House today, they would not have been able to give an opinion. I also note that, if they were standing where I am, they could not say, "Yes, we support it" or "No, we do not support it." I have no doubt that there will come a time when not only will Sinn Fein be giving its opinions, but, unless I am sadly mistaken, we will find that it will be claiming enormous credit, even for the vilified assembly. Knowing the organisation as well as I do, I believe that that will happen.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down also referred to decommissioning. That is an area which we will debate in greater depth on another occasion.

However, I have a sincere point to put to the main Opposition party. We all remember Washington 3. It took the Conservative Government many years to wriggle around and somehow get away from that precondition. Would it not be tactically wrong, at this stage or any other, to reinvent Washington 3 mark 2 and end up giving not a disadvantage but a negotiating advantage to those who hold the guns and an advantage in terms of public perception?
I make that point because I know of the sensitivities involved in the issue—I share them. I would be wary of giving any tactical advantage on that issue at this stage. We are setting up a democratic institution. The assembly will be democratic because, for the first time, it will provide an opportunity in the north of Ireland for all people, be they nationalists or Unionists, to work together on the basis of consent and to begin to deal with the problems and divisions of history that have caused us so many problems in the past and in the present. Is anyone seriously saying that it is not a good thing that this legislation would provide for nationalism and Unionism to work together in the same assembly, in the same Cabinet, in the same Administration at all levels, so that the strengths of each community can be jointly used by the entire community in a unity of purpose—this is the unity that counts—which will allow us to create something absolutely new in the north of Ireland?

Mr. Robert McCartney: I respect the sincerity with which those latter views are expressed, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that, for nationalism and particularly for Sinn Fein, this agreement is purely transitional—the final objective is a united Ireland? Within an assembly, that will be the objective of pan-nationalism, just as, within the same assembly, the objective of Unionism will be to prevent that from occurring. The assembly will be a constant unstable battle of political attrition that will render the prospects of peace and reconciliation highly unlikely.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This is a very important debate and I do not wish to stifle the spontaneity of exchanges, but there is also a programme and limited time, therefore, for everyone to make a contribution.

Mr. Mallon: It is no secret to the hon. and learned Member for North Down that I want and demand the right, by peaceful, democratic, political means, to change the status of the north of Ireland. What this agreement does is allow the means whereby, by peaceful means alone, I and others like me can pursue that objective. Can anyone dispute that?

Mr. Peter Robinson: In the Cabinet.

Mr. Mallon: Yes, in the Cabinet, because never again will people who represent the nationalist community come in the tradesmen's entrance in any assembly. Never again are we going to find that we are permanently excluded from influence, power and responsibility at the highest level. Yes, in the Cabinet and, yes, at every level because that is surely what the essence of consent is. Consent is


not just a Unionist requirement in constitutional terms. Consent is also there as an important part of the nationalist community's position.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does that apply to Sinn Fein as well?

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman should talk to Sinn Fein. He has had the opportunity over two years. I will not act as a surrogate to take messages for him. I have no doubt that Sinn Fein will read them, but I take the point that was made, I think sincerely, by the hon. and learned Member for North Down. Every generation has a right to write its own history and no generation has the right to predetermine the future generation's position, in terms either of Unionism or, indeed, of nationalism.
One of the great disservices that has been done to Unionism over the years is that people have tried to impose the past on a changing present and to cater for the future in terms of that antediluvian past. There is the difference. This element of consent does allow people to work in that way—within Northern Ireland, yes; in this Parliament, yes; in the north-south bodies, yes; in the east-west bodies or the council of the isles, yes. Within that, people have a right, and will exercise it, to try to push and to state their political views, while recognising their duty to fulfil the responsibilities in terms of this legislation and agreement.

Mr. David Winnick: Is that not the very point that has been made repeatedly over the years to Sinn Fein and, indeed, to the IRA? They have a perfectly legitimate political right to argue for a united Ireland, but they do not and will never have a right in law to try to achieve that by terrorism and violence.

Mr. Mallon: I agree with my hon. Friend. That surely is the essence of a democratic process. It rules out for ever any concept of the unification of Ireland by force, which is absolutely unacceptable and wrong. It also rules out for ever any notion that Unionism in any set of circumstances can be defended by force. Consent to that very important principle is a two-way process as well. I hope that that will be honoured in all ways by all those who agree that consent is very valuable.
Inclusivity is the other very important factor. The day the Sunningdale agreement and the arrangements that were set up there fell was one of the saddest of my life. One of the reasons why the agreement fell—there were many—was its lack of inclusivity. There is always a price for inclusivity. The question is: does the net result that is to be gained by it outweigh the price that has to be paid?
In those talks, I found myself sitting beside someone who had murdered the founding member of our party, a close friend of mine—not across the table, but next door. That is difficult for anyone, Unionist or nationalist, but that is what inclusivity means. Inclusivity does not mean that things can be staged. Inclusivity means that if people get the required electoral mandate, they are members of that assembly. What is more, it means that they are members of that Government.
The interesting thing is that not one party in the talks did not adopt and recommend the d'Hondt system of inclusivity, so, when we debate this further down the line,

let us remember that that is the system which was recommended by every single political party. It will have its price in terms of sensitivities, but the net gain in terms of the well-being of people—all people—in the north of Ireland will be seen further down the line.
The ethos of political life in Ireland north and south will change substantially. One has to look only at the constitutional change that will be undertaken by the people in the Republic of Ireland when they go to the referendum to see the extent to which a new ethos will be accommodated in Irish political life.
I think that it is there for all of us to make the adjustments. There are things in this that I do not like. There are things in it that I would have preferred otherwise, but we have all got to live with the parts that we do not like for the greater and, indeed, wider good of everyone we represent.

Mr. Stott: My hon. Friends the Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and I have been members of the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body for a number of years. It has made remarkable progress in understanding our positions both on the island of Ireland and on Great Britain. There are two empty chairs and those chairs have not been filled by our Unionist colleagues on the Opposition Benches. It is a tragedy that they have not been there over the years to try to facilitate greater understanding between all our parties and our two nations.

Mr. Mallon: In fact, there were three empty chairs. Mine was empty for the last two plenary sessions because the meetings coincided with crucial stages of the talks. We hope to put that right. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Perhaps the council of the isles could encourage Unionist members to play their role in an inter-parliamentary body. If my memory serves me right, in 1986 one of the requirements of the Ulster Unionist party's policy was an inter-parliamentary body. Then, the Anglo-Irish Agreement made a subtle mistake—it found that requirement favourable, so the UUP's policy changed. I do not think that this is a matter of principle for any Unionist, but, in pure political tactical terms, it would be the right thing to do.
I welcome the change relating to disqualification. I served in the Seanad Eireann in 1982, but suffered the ignominy of being hauled before the courts and disqualified from the Northern Ireland Assembly. It did not cause me great concern, but it certainly cost me a great deal of money that I could not afford. Eminent lawyers from both north and south were intent on proving that the Republic of Ireland was no longer a member of the Commonwealth. Be that as it may, I am glad, belatedly, to see the provision go, because it would have been out of tune with the actual thinking and ethos of the agreement.
Of course, getting rid of that piece of legislation will be hailed as another notch—I have to be careful with my terminology—another gain by Sinn Fein. I would have to say to Sinn Fein members, as gently as I could, "Sorry, mates—been there, done that, long before you ever thought of it."
My final point relates to the replacement of members, which is a serious issue. The entire proportionality of the assembly, of its committees and, indeed, of its Cabinet


could be distorted if the proportionality on which the assembly was set up were disturbed. We can imagine circumstances in which someone could be sitting as a Minister, but a member of his party dies and at the by-election the party is not returned. Can he then continue to sit as a Minister when the proportionality upon which he was appointed has changed? Imagine how difficult it would be in the by-election process when, in effect, all the parties have recommended proportionality. I ask the Minister to consider that point very carefully, because the entire proportional basis for the assembly could be unhinged.
I welcome the Bill. It will be remarkably different; it will be historic in its own right. There will be difficulties—difficulties in the referendum, difficulties in the election, difficulties in setting up the assembly, difficulties in getting it to operate and difficulties in getting the type of mechanics that are required from a standing start. However, it is a good agreement which stands up to scrutiny, so the one thing that is now needed is inspiration. The people of the north of Ireland need to begin to believe that they can—that we all can—solve this problem. They look to the political parties for that inspiration.
Some will cherry-pick, I have no doubt; some will nitpick, I have no doubt; some will try not to pick, and I have no doubt about that either; but do we not all owe it to the people of the north of Ireland, who have lived through a crucible for almost 30 years, to put our nitpicking to one side and to try to inspire them to give the response that I am confident they will give on the day of the referendum and in future months? That is our challenge.
I put it to those who are opposed to the Bill that there is always something bigger than one's own argument; there is always something more important than one's own ideology; there is always something much more fundamentally important than what we think. I make the plea to them, on this occasion, to think of all the people who live in the north of Ireland and the future that they face.

Mr. William Ross: I have been in this House for a fair number of years and, during that time, I have seen cross-party support on a few occasions. It has always been the prelude to disaster. It means that the legislation before the House is not examined in detail and that grave errors will not be exposed. Of course, that is not to say that some legislation, such as the poll tax, which received ferocious opposition did not also prove to be a disaster. When all the major parties put their names to the same bit of paper, heaven help us all in the long run.
When such cross-party support is allied to the rapid passage of legislation—in this case, within 24 hours—the probability of disaster is multiplied. I remind the House of one piece of legislation that went through the House in 1972, which removed the Stormont parliamentary system. Ever since, this House has been engaged in one initiative after another in an attempt to replace it, with scant success.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Does my hon. Friend remember the Child Support Agency legislation, which this House enthusiastically passed and now enthusiastically condemns?

Mr. Ross: The House would enthusiastically love to murder that legislation, if only it could think of something

to put in its place. No doubt Ministers are beavering away and will come up with something to replace it in due course.
This debate is supposed to be about the principle of the Bill, but, as the Bill will create an assembly in Northern Ireland in line with the agreement signed within the past week, it is inevitable that the whole question of an assembly will intrude into our deliberations. My view of any assembly is that it should be both democratic and able to work efficiently. Quite frankly, when I apply those criteria to the proposed body, I fear that it will not be the success that those who laud it believe it will be. The end result will be very different.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was present when the House joined together to endorse the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985. The Conservative Government said that their aim was to strengthen the Union and the Labour Opposition, under Mr. Kinnock, said that it was a step, albeit a small one, in the direction of a united Ireland. The agreement promised peace, stability and reconciliation for everyone, but ended up with hundreds upon hundreds of deaths, mutilations and mass destruction. Are we in for the same thing again as a result of the happy and unctuous togetherness of the House?

Mr. Ross: To that I would add that Baroness Thatcher, who was then Prime Minister, said that she had signed the agreement to stop the violence, but she came very rapidly to understand that that was not just going to happen.
Before the people of Northern Ireland are really in a position to judge whether the assembly will work, they need to have a very clear understanding of what has been agreed by the parties. Even before the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) intervened, it was clear from what we have heard today that those who are pushing the assembly as the way forward certainly have very different ideas, hopes and aspirations as to where it will end up. We all know that the language of the agreement is ambiguous and that one can take any one of half a dozen meanings from it and extend it in any direction.
The agreement sets up an assembly of 108 Members, a north-south ministerial council and implementation bodies. I noticed that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) swiftly skated over what the implementation bodies were, how they were going to operate and whether they would be able to continue to exist if something went wrong with the assembly, although I do not think that they would be needed then as we also have a British-Irish council, which is the Irish way of saying a British Isles council.
There is also to be a British-Irish intergovernmental conference. Some interesting paragraphs in the agreement state that other types of implementation bodies could be created within that between London and Dublin, bypassing the others if they so wished.
Of course, there will also be certain constitutional changes. As far as I can see, the Bill, sadly, does not detail the changes in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, but the agreement makes it plain that in future the Union will be defended only by the votes of the people in a referendum, which is to be held every seven years or


thereabouts. I find that very interesting because the legislation that already exists for the specific purpose of providing for border polls to ask exactly the same question stipulates a minimum of 10 years. Why on earth have we departed from the 10-year rule?
I recall from my brief glance through the so-called Mitchell document that it stipulated five years. We have now gone up to seven, but there was no need for that issue to be raised in the agreement at all. The possibility of a having border poll already existed. Indeed, we could have held one next year. It might not have been a bad idea to hold one now so that before people signed up to this agreement, one could find out whether they were prepared to enter a united Ireland or not.
As most of the Unionist population in Northern Ireland are rapidly coming to the conclusion that the agreement drives us down that road, we would have had a very clear answer before we started erecting a house of cards on a sandy foundation. I believe that the existing legislation allowing for polls to ask whether Northern Ireland is part of Her Majesty's dominions or part of the Irish Republic was quite sufficient, and there was no need for the issue to be raised at all.
The Bill also sets out the make-up of the assembly. There are to be 108 Members. Well, there are, I think, 129 in Scotland which has an electorate of nearly 4 million, and there are 60 for Wales, which has an electorate of just over 2 million. It is interesting that the Government have to bribe all the politicians they can in Northern Ireland with the possibility of a seat in order to ensure that a large number of folk will be prepared to support the proposal within the councils of the various parties.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that even the simplest soul in Northern Ireland realises that this unnecessary and unjustifiable number has been decided on to minimise Ulster Unionist influence?

Mr. Ross: I agree with my hon. Friend as far as he went, but he should have gone on to point out that the real reason for it was to ensure that the maximum number of Sinn Fein and Protestant paramilitary representatives would be elected. That is the reason for six Members per constituency. Many of those people simply could not get elected on the basis of five per constituency.
Of course, we all know that the weird and wonderful electoral system for the Northern Ireland forum that we are going to bring to an end later this evening was not designed to ensure proper or equitable representation. It was designed, created and used to ensure that all the paramilitaries would manage to get people elected. Once elected, they were able to bring in the same number of people as the major parties in Northern Ireland, so each and every one was on the same footing, although, in fact, there was unequal support for them across the community. That is the only reason for the large number of representatives in Northern Ireland.
The number is even more amazing when we find that the very small number of Northern Ireland Ministers claim that they are doing a very good job at present—they must have a very low opinion of the capacities of the people of Northern Ireland if it takes 108 of them to do what five Ministers are doing at the moment.
We know that the Secretary of State and her Ministers have appointed many quangos to do their job for them. They have expended huge sums of public money without any reference to the democratic principle. In any event, there are now going to be 108 representatives, which is absolutely crazy. It becomes even crazier when one remembers that we now have a civic forum comprising the great and good and those appointed from the voluntary sector. We do not know who is appointing them, or on what criteria, how many of them there are or how they will be funded or staffed, but there is no question but that they will be staffed. It will be the super-quango to end all super-quangos, and it will be the new factory of grievances within Northern Ireland to act as a counterbalance to the assembly when it is set up.
Given all the voting systems in the assembly, it is peculiar that it is only on the issue of leaving the United Kingdom that a simple majority—50 per cent. plus 1—is required. On nearly every other issue, a weighted majority is required. I know the agreement says that within the assembly most votes will require a simple majority, but that depends on whether a decision is considered to be a key decision. The truth is that as it takes only 30 members of that assembly to demand a vote on the basis of a decision being a key decision, nearly everything other than the most minor will be treated as a key decision demanding a weighted cross-community vote to carry it.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Would it be accurate to say, as was said to me at the weekend, that for cross-community issues one has to identify oneself as either "Unionist" or "Alliance"? That would mean, for example, that the Alliance party and any other party of such a nature would not have a status equal to that of other parties.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is correct. One will have to wear a little tab saying, "I'm a Unionist, or "I'm a Nationalist", and the Alliance party tab would have to say something like, "I'm in the middle so I don't really count". I do not know how on earth the Alliance people are going to be weighed in the balance. There will have to be two of them on each side to show that the issue in question has cross-community support. Perhaps instead of declaring ourselves as Unionists or nationalists, we will have to say, "I'm a Roman Catholic" or "I'm a Prod", whatever that may mean, or something else. This matter has not been dealt with so far, and it is remarkable that no one has raised it before.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is not it outrageous that the agreement asks that people tell us who they represent once the election is over? It is only after the election that they have to determine whether they are Unionists or nationalists. In some cases, people will no doubt determine that on the basis of what suits the voting in the assembly that will then be elected.

Mr. Ross: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will want to pursue that point and I certainly hope that he does. He has raised a number of interesting issues that have not yet been resolved.
Let me turn to the method of dismissing the representatives of murder from the Northern Ireland Executive. There is no way in which we can keep them out. After the election there will be a cross-community


election to decide on the Presiding Officer and the deputy presiding officer. There will then be another to elect the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. After that, the d'Hondt system of proportional representation will come into play when Members of the Assembly Committees elect Chairmen on the basis of party strength.
The d'Hondt system is automatic and one can predict the result using the numbers in the forum that will come to an end within a few days. There will probably be two SDLP Ministers and almost certainly two Sinn Fein Ministers in the Northern Ireland Government. In other words, terrorist representatives will sit on the Executive at the very heart of the Government of Northern Ireland with full Executive powers to run a Department within the broad-brush principles that have been set out.
Once the terrorists are in place, it will be almost impossible to remove them because that would require a cross-community vote. I cannot envisage the two SDLP representatives in the assembly voting to remove Mr. Adams, regardless of what the IRA is doing outside.
It seems to me from my reading of the document that the party or group to which a political representative belongs is not relevant; it is whether the individual in post has misbehaved or not. Unless the Minister is found wearing a balaclava, holding a smoking gun, with a corpse in front of him and nobody else within 100 yd, he will be safe. It will be impossible to get rid of him and he will be allowed to continue running the schools, the Department of the Environment or deciding where money will go for industrial development in Northern Ireland. It is a crazy system and is a consequence of having an Executive for Northern Ireland. It is a long way from where my party started in the process.
Although the Prime Minister's letter is very well written and carefully crafted, it does not mean as much as a puff of smoke. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) pointed out, he needs the agreement of all parties to the talks before he can make any change—otherwise the whole system will fall.
I listened with care to what has been said and I have set out the position in terms of the expulsion of the spokesmen for murder-not only from the IRA, but perhaps from the Ulster Democratic party or the Progressive Unionist party. The same system applies. The terrorists—along with their colleagues in the SDLP, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made perfectly clear—are intent on destroying the Union and they will be put in where they can exert the maximum influence to bring that about. It does not seems to be a sensible way to proceed if one is a Unionist. If the Government wanted to retain the unity of the United Kingdom, they should have tried to do something sensible about it.
There is another little problem that we shall come to later, but I hope that, to some extent at least, it will be addressed in the Secretary of State's reply to the debate. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Ministers will have read the reports of the Select Committee and the Northern Ireland forum on electoral fraud and seen the evidence. The most powerful evidence in that respect did not come from the Democratic Unionist party, the UK Unionist party or the Ulster Unionist party; it came from Mr. Attwood who represents the SDLP on Belfast city council. It was perfectly plain that massive fraud was being committed by Sinn Fein-1RA in creating votes especially in Belfast, mid-Ulster and Armagh.
What are the Secretary of State and the chief electoral officer doing or what have they done to prevent electoral fraud in the referendum? What steps have they taken to identify people? The Secretary of State knows that one organisation in Northern Ireland has the photographs of more than 900,000 citizens and information about them and could print proper identity cards within a week if it were given the go ahead. I shall return to that at a later stage. The right hon. Lady should know to which organisation I refer, as I hope that only one organisation has that many photographs and is perfectly legal, although the Army and the police may also have the same information. That organisation is perfectly capable of doing the job and a few years ago set up a team to look into producing identity cards for the entire United Kingdom. It has the photographs and they could produce the cards within a week or so. Has the Secretary of State taken any steps towards producing proper identification for electoral matters and other matters in Northern Ireland? I am certain that she has not.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend accept that the excuse that there is not time to change the current legislation is given the lie by the fact that today's legislation will go through in a matter of hours? In other words, legislation dealing with identity can be changed if there is the will to do so.

Mr. Ross: Of course. If that can be done for one measure, it can be done for another. The fact that the authorities have footled around for the past 10 years is a clear indication that no one wants to be the one to do it, as Sinn Fein-IRA benefits most from the fraud that is taking place.
I am also greatly concerned that, despite all the claims that are being made that the Maryfield secretariat is to disappear, it will remain, but in a different room. It is backed up by the ability to create cross-border bodies, regardless of the existence of the assembly, via a mechanism set up in the context of the British-Irish council and the British-Irish intergovernmental conference.
I am a sceptic, and that is how I am described in the Unionist party at the moment. I have heard the term before and have always been proud to wear that label. To me, a sceptic means someone who looks at what the Government are doing and says, "I see their words, but what the blazes are they really up to?" Whenever I ask that question I often do not like the answer. Nor do Ministers like me asking the question.
I have concerns about the legislation and about the power of the Secretary of State in the schedules to the Bill. In my view, the measure has been rushed. We shall return to the amendments later and the legislation will be rammed down the throats of the people of Northern Ireland who will reap the misery that will be caused by this whole miserable affair.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: It is always interesting to listen to the deeply sceptical speeches by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). Earlier he spoke about Unionism and the United Kingdom. In a wider context, with regard to the multinational state that we call the United Kingdom, we


are taking part in what can be described only as profound and radical constitutional change. What is taking place in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will reshape the United Kingdom. I offered that point to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), at the time of the framework document. I said that two or three paragraphs in that document referring to a Northern Ireland assembly represented the beginnings of constitutional change.
Speaking as a federalist, I also said in the company of the then Prime Minister at a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Dumfries in June 1996, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), now Deputy Speaker, that in my view with regard to constitutional change in the United Kingdom, within 20 years Scotland would be either an independent nation or a constituent nation in a federal Britain. As a federalist, I think that we are heading down the federal road.
I shall be brief, as I know that many hon. Members are anxious to speak. Last week, in an article that I wrote on the peace talks for my local paper, the Greenock Telegraph, I said that I had prayed on Good Friday that the participants would reach a tolerable accommodation—I have no doubt that 1 was in a large congregation in my prayers on that day.
Many of my constituents—I need hardly say this to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) or the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)—have deep family ties with the people from both traditions in Northern Ireland, and I know that some of the Unionist Members are regular visitors to my constituency.
We have other ties with Northern Ireland. Not so long ago, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I came across a platoon of young Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders down on the border. I had the good sense not to talk to them, as I could see that they were nervous—I speak as someone who served his national service with the Royal Military Police. At a guess, Mr. Deputy Speaker, several of those 20 or so young lads would have come from our constituencies, as the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders recruit widely in Glasgow and Renfrewshire.
Incidentally, a local Orangeman—Unionist Members will confirm that there are a few Orangemen in Greenock and Inverclyde—reminded me of the words of the Ulster poet, the late John Hewitt, who wrote in one of his poems:
Celt, Britain, Roman, Saxon, Dane and Scot
Time and this island tied a crazy knot".
I see some of the Unionist Members nodding. He also said:
This is my country. If my people came from England four centuries ago, the only trace that is left is in my name.
That is something which hon. Members who represent mainland Britain constituencies should remember. I have heard absurd people on the extreme left of British politics talk about white settlers in Northern Ireland. I find that disgraceful—the family of one of my best friends in Belfast moved from Scotland in 1612, so has been there a lot longer than many Irish Americans have been in America.
I welcome the Bill, although I have a couple of concerns. On clause 3, I believe that any vacancies in the assembly can be filled only through a by-election—that is

the right and proper way in which to fill vacancies in any assembly or Parliament. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is sitting immediately in front of me, has some reservations about that, but a by-election is the only truly democratic way in which to fill a vacancy created by the death or retirement—or, dare I say, the imprisonment—of a Member. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take note of that.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in so far as what he says applies to single-Member constituencies, but does he recognise that, under the single transferable vote system, that approach may distort the concept of democracy?

Dr. Godman: I am not so sure about that. I recall that there were two recent by-elections in the Irish Republic, in Limerick and in Dublin. They were won, I am pleased to say—

Mr. Stott: By Labour.

Dr. Godman: By the Irish Labour party—my hon. Friend should be a little more accurate. That may cause problems in the Dail for the Taoiseach, but I do not think that filling vacancies in such a democratic way would cause problems, and I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Belfast, South is arguing that they should be filled in any other way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not labour that point, which is the subject of an amendment that the Chairman of Ways and Means has selected. The House will be able to consider it in greater detail in Committee.

Dr. Godman: I always abide by your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker—some would call it your instruction.
I was not being facetious when I suggested to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), that we consider holding an international architectural competition for the design of a new assembly. I am delighted that the Minister of State, my hon. and old Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), is here, as he may recall that when I suggested a similar idea some six years ago for the design of a Scottish Parliament, my Scottish parliamentary colleagues laughed me out of the building. However, some 90 firms of architects from throughout the world are now keen to secure that commission.
I assure the House that I shall return to this question. I am conscious of the cost of such a project in Northern Ireland, but similar concerns were raised in the House about the design and building of a new Scottish Parliament. I believe that such a project should be seriously considered, to attract the very best international architects. I should be delighted if an architect from Northern Ireland won the competition, but we should throw it wide open, as we did for the design of the national museum of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. A new assembly in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Peter Robinson: We have already got one.

Dr. Godman: I know there is one already; I am suggesting a new building.
I believe that a substantial yes vote north and south of the border would offer a remarkable future for the people of all of these islands. I have some reservations—I say this as a friend of the people of the Irish Republic—about the fact that two referendums will be held on the same day south of the border, which may cause problems. I cannot believe that Sinn Fein will argue yes in the north and no in the south—that is utterly illogical. Whatever Sinn Fein's reservations, I do not think that it will argue for a no vote in the south.
As I said, we are experiencing a dramatic constitutional change to our multinational state—I say that as some Opposition Members refer to our multinational state as "this country"—and I sincerely hope that we shall end up with a federal system that incorporates Northern Ireland. I believe that the Bill is good; it will open the door to what could be a remarkable, peaceful and stable future for the people of these islands.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am informed that this debate will end at 8.13 pm, so I shall be as brief as possible. If the hand of history is so heavy upon us, as the Prime Minister said, it is strange that the leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour party and of the Ulster Unionist party are not present. If it is such an important debate, it is strange that those who did so much to get us where we are today are not here to hear and respond to our objections. They should have been here.
It is wrong to say that the ordinary people of Northern Ireland are cherry-picking or nit-picking. Perhaps hon. Members do not care, because they have not been in the midst of the sorrows, as some of us have. I believe not only in sensitivity but in reality.
When considering a document that promises the release of all prisoners, no matter what murders or other crimes they have committed or what sentences they are supposed to serve, it is best for us to mention those who committed crimes on this side of the water, because I know that republicans tell us that there is no justice in the courts of Northern Ireland and they wave aside sentences by saying that there was no jury.
Take Patrick Magee, an IRA bomber who was behind the audacious terrorist outrage in Britain when the Tory conference in Brighton was bombed. His target was the Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher. She escaped, but five people were killed and many were injured. The trial judge handed down eight life sentences and described Magee, now 47, as a man of exceptional cruelty and inhumanity, but in two years he will be out. That is what the document asks us to agree to.
Take Paul Kavanagh, part of the IRA active service unit that targeted London in the month-long campaign in 1981. He was involved in the bombing of Chelsea barracks, in which two people died. When he was convicted in 1985, he was told by the trial judge:
It may be that no Home Secretary will ever think it right to release you.
Now 42, he is serving five life sentences and was expected to serve at least 35 years; but in two years he, too, will walk the streets free.
The murderers are not only on one side of the fence: Johnny Adair, believed to have organised the shooting of up to 20 people, was gaoled for 16 years in 1995 for being

a commander of the Ulster Freedom Fighters. A Belfast court was told that Adair, 33, was sinister, manipulative and dedicated to the cause of naked sectarianism, with a hatred of those whom he regarded as militant republicans. In two years he, too, will walk the streets free.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is legitimate, when assessing such individuals for release, to consider their personal transformation and renunciation of violence, but that the moment one adds into the equation a consideration of whether their former colleagues or their faction are party to an agreement, one admits that they are political prisoners?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman knows little about what is happening in the gaols of Northern Ireland. I know plenty, as I have been a prison chaplain for years. There is no sign of repentance in the gaols. They are run as academies for terrorism. The slogans are on the wall. When a person is killed outside, the cheers go up in the prisons. I have heard them.
People keep saying that they are sensitive to the fears, but people on both sides of the religious divide who have been robbed of their wives, husbands or children, or who have given their boys in the defence of their country against the so-called Irish Republican Army, say to me, "What did they die for? To have the killers let out because an agreement has been made?"
I do not know how the House can persuade people that that is the way to peace. The people who have put their finger on the agreement have not apologised by any act or word. There are no fruits meet for repentance.
The two Prime Ministers told us that decommissioning would be addressed first of all and that there would be no talks until it was dealt with, but it was put back and back and back. For the 14-odd months that my party and the UK Unionist party were in the talks, it was said that there was no progress, but when we left the talks there was still no progress until almost the last minute. We were not holding back progress: there was no progress for many months after we left.
We told the people of Northern Ireland in our election literature that if the Government did not deliver decommissioning, the terrorists' representatives who came to the table would have a tremendous advantage, because they could say, "If you don't do what we say, we return to violence." There was not a level playing field. We said that if that happened, we would go, and then we were blamed for keeping our pledge to our constituents. I have no apology to make to the House or to anybody for keeping to what I am mandated to do.
It is strange that the majority of Unionist representatives in the House speak today with one mind, despite their differences on other matters. Those who should be here to defend the document are strangely absent.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: This is the second occasion on which the hon. Gentleman has referred to my party leader, John Hume. He may not be aware of the fact, but Mr. Hume was present in our debate on Monday and had to leave for Brussels on urgent business that the


hon. Gentleman will be much more aware of than I am. That is where he is today. We hope to be able to represent his views to the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On this occasion, I was referring not to Mr. Hume but to the leader of the Ulster Unionist party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps when the hon. Gentlemen refer to any hon. Member, they will mention the constituency rather than the surname.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have said, "the hon. Member for Foyle".
All I can say is that the debate lacks reality, when those who proclaim the agreement as the best way forward for Northern Ireland cannot come to the House and debate it with us. The same issue is before the forum.
People say that the Democratic Unionists and the United Kingdom Unionists are not prepared to engage Sinn Fein-IRA in debate. My councillors meet them in debate in the local councils all the time. They would not come to the forum because they would not debate on a level playing field. We invited them to come, but they would not. Debating with such figures is not negotiating one's country's future with them. There is a great difference between debating and negotiating, and that needs to be made clear to the House.
This all came to a head when Mr. Mitchell, who was forced on the forum—he was not the elected chairman, as we in the forum were not even allowed to say whether we wanted him; he was pushed on to us—issued a document. Everyone was told that it must not be leaked and that no one else must see it, because the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Gerry Adams had a document that the people of Northern Ireland had never seen. All this has flowed from that document, and we have been kept blind to it.
We now have a new document; the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) told the people that it was a terrible document and that he could not negotiate on it. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said that he would not touch it with a 40-ft bargepole because it was so terrible. The Alliance man—we have alliance representatives here—Lord Alderdice, said that he could not agree with it either and told the Prime Minister, "Get over here quickly, or all is lost."
Now, we have been told that there have been radical changes, that sweat was broken, assurances were given and all the promises made and at last a document has been achieved—the agreement—which is the salvation. I happened to get a copy of the document that Mr. Mitchell put out, and I and my friends went through it carefully. There has been no substantive change. In fact, any changes were not for the good of the Unionist people. The one change that stood out was the release of all the prisoners in two years, which was not in the original document. Instead of improving the situation, the new document was worse.

Mr. Forsythe: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it an absolute disgrace that if the murderer of the Roman Catholic gentleman from my constituency, who was

sitting outside a Gaelic club when he was murdered, is brought to justice, he will be released in two years, after all the condemnation of that murder?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows my feelings about that matter.
We are not considering an assembly with any power—it is not something that any Unionist or any real democrat would accept. The schedule to the Bill states:
Meetings shall be held at such times and places as the Secretary of State directs.
The Secretary of State will say when and where the assembly will meet. If she does not want it to meet, it will not and if she does—this is what the Bill says and what every supporter of the agreement will vote for tonight—the schedule states:
Proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with standing orders.
Who makes those standing orders? It is the Secretary of State, and if she does not like what is going on, she can change them at any time. Is that democracy?
The schedule continues:
The Secretary of State shall appoint … the initial presiding officer, and … the initial deputy presiding officer.
However, they do not even need to be appointed from inside the assembly, as the schedule does not state that they must be appointed from among the elected representatives. Someone could be appointed from outside, as Mr. Mitchell was pushed in from outside. That is what the Bill states. We must immediately ask ourselves whether we can vote for such a document. How could we?
When a Member resigns his seat, how will it be filled? We are not even told. There are arguments for a six-Member constituency. I have been elected to the European Parliament on a single transferable vote. God forbid that anything should happen to the hon. Member for Foyle, but if it did, the Social Democratic and Labour party would not have a seat. I know all about that. We should be told. This should not be airy-fairy. Let us hear what the Government are going to do, but oh no, the Secretary of State is all-powerful.
The schedule also states:
References to standing orders are to orders determined by the Secretary of State from time to time and notified to the presiding officer.
The Secretary of State could sit in her office and say, "I don't like the way the assembly carried out its business yesterday. Here is a new order. Send that off to the Clerk and call them to order." Is that democracy? If hon. Members think that it is, let them vote for it, but the people of Northern Ireland are aghast.
I could mention many other aspects of the Bill, but we do not have the time to discuss it. In fact, to discuss it in this House is to discuss it with people who are deaf, because they are determined to vote for it. However, I am glad, because no one fought harder than I did to get a referendum. I did not want a referendum in the south of Ireland—that has nothing to do with our position—but I wanted one in the north. Of course, the voting day has been changed. We never vote on a Friday, but we have to vote on the same day as the south, and that is why the day has been changed. We have always voted on a Wednesday for local government and on a Thursday for


Parliament, but that has all changed—get it as near as possible to what happens in the south, and then we shall have the vote.
I have one question for the Secretary of State. At the forum, we were told, "It must be consensus. You must have a majority from the Unionist and the nationalist sides of the House or nothing can carry." If it is proven at the election that the majority of the Unionist people say no, what will the Government do?

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I will take in earnest your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about being brief.
Listening to the debate and in particular to the speeches by hon. Members representing the various Unionist parties, one could be very depressed this afternoon about the future for the people of Northern Ireland. The genesis of this simple Bill was the agreement of Good Friday—I mean Good Friday not in a religious but in a political sense. Hon. Members would be misled if they took many of the remarks made this evening to be the attitude of the people of Northern Ireland. I can but remember on the Friday, Saturday and Easter Sunday the huge euphoria and the welcome that people, at least in my constituency, gave the agreement, be they Unionist, nationalist or non-committed. Every single one of them without exception said, "Thank God you have got together. We hope that you can make the arrangements," as we have done substantively, "and give us peace for ourselves and for our children." That was the response that I felt, but I have not felt it during the debate—it is as if I am in a foreign clime.
My constituency is roughly evenly divided, and its people represent the aspirations of all the cross-sections in Northern Ireland. Right across the spectrum, from extreme Unionism to extreme nationalism, there was acceptance of the agreement in my constituency, and I believe that that is reflected in many other constituencies in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Robert McCartney: On Monday last, I went to the village of Lisbellaw in Fermanagh to address what I was told would be a meeting of 60 people; 450 turned up at the hall, and 80 stood in the doorway for three hours. All were solidly against the agreement.

Mr. McGrady: I do not know whether to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, but perhaps the eloquence of his delivery rather than his arguments brought so many people to the hall. That is for the public to decide at a future time.
The Bill is an enabling measure, and it follows the agreement on Good Friday after, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, a gestation period of two wearying and frustrating years. The negativity of Members representing the various Unionist parties does not reflect honestly the feeling of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not dispute their right to promote such an attitude, but they are not conveying to hon. Members the euphoria and hope felt by the people of Northern Ireland on Good Friday.
The agreement on which the Bill is based is founded on equality, respect and fairness. Built into it throughout are mechanisms for the protection of the aspirations of

nationalists or of Unionists and for the prevention of one side overriding, outdoing or in some way conning the other. The people will decide on 22 May whether they support the agreement or not. I hope and am convinced that it will be endorsed substantively.
To express the democratic wish about which we hear so much and which is of paramount importance, the Bill will enable that decision to be initially implemented through the creation of the shadow assembly and the corresponding bodies dealing with the north-south and east-west relationships. We in the Social Democratic and Labour party have laboured for over a quarter of a century to bring those concepts together, as we consider them to be the only way in which to resolve the conflict in Northern Ireland, to achieve justice and to protect the various aspirations.
A difficult part of the process, which is often forgotten, is the weaning of people away from the gun, the bomb, the bullet, the punishment beatings and the rest of the paraphernalia of violence and into the democratic process. That will not happen overnight. The process will not embrace all the extremes of our society. We should remember the young men who were shot yesterday in Portadown and extend our sympathy to their families. Violence will continue. It cannot be switched off completely, but I hope that it will decrease, and we must bring into the process those who previously espoused violence.
The agreement creates a situation in which we can all express our aspirations and political philosophies and work for them strongly, but where each is protected from the other by its terms. No one—no party or group of parties—will be able to impose his will on another because protections are in place. It will be difficult, but I should love to think that we shall go forward into this new process with such an ethos.
Those who oppose the agreement and are campaigning to reject out of hand all the work that has been done have given no alternative to the people over the past two and a half decades of violence. At least we have addressed in the agreement the problem of relationships in the north of Ireland, and the problem of relationships between north and south and between east and west. If the agreement goes wrong, so be it, but let the people decide on 22 May and 25 June. We should take their word forward and work with it positively rather than negatively. That is the message on which the Bill is based.
I have two comments on the Bill, the first of which concerns numbers in the assembly. The system of six representatives from each of the 18 parliamentary constituencies has been portrayed as a bribe or a sop to small parties, but such a sop could have been contrived much more effectively. We want as many aspects of political life in Northern Ireland as possible to be represented in the assembly in a broad democratic process; we want inclusivity. There is no sinister motive and there has been no bribery to make small parties sign up.
My second point relates to substitution for vacancies, about which there has been considerable debate. As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said, in a proportional representation system it is more just in democratic terms to have a replacement process rather than an elective process to fill a vacancy. In any PR electoral system, the majority party would always win


a single by-election, which would deny the system's proportionality. It is logical to make arrangements that presume that parties will negotiate and agree to fill vacancies by means other than the election of a single replacement in one constituency.
I affirm once again that the Bill will enable the people of Northern Ireland to have an election—what is wrong with that?—and to establish an assembly, which I hope and pray will make arrangements to take us into the next millennium in peace. I cannot for the life of me think of how anyone could object to those two principles. The agreement gives the people of Northern Ireland the authority to express their opinion in a referendum. If it is successful and there is a yes vote, they will have the democratic right to elect people to represent them in the new process.

Mr. Phil Willis: I shall be brief, because I am humbled, as the representative of the Liberal Democrat party, to listen to so many hon. Members who have such experience of the Province and bring to the debate not simply the past two years but a lifetime of work there.
I apologise to the House, and especially to the Secretary of State, for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who had an accident in the Easter holiday. He sends his best wishes. He has worked hard to try to get to know what is happening within the Province.
I have sat here for the past three hours, and have become increasingly depressed that what was an historic achievement on Good Friday should very quickly begin to descend back into the old partisan situation. I understand fully where the Unionist Members are coming from. I hope that hon. Members will give them the respect they deserve for their views, but equally I hope that Unionist Members will recognise that they are at a pivotal point in the history of Northern Ireland, and that the way in which they conduct themselves and the views they represent are important to the whole peace process.
It was rather sad that Senator Mitchell came in for criticism. His work as chairman has been remarkable. I pay tribute from the Liberal Democrat Benches to him, and to all those people of whatever persuasion who paid such a high price to come to the agreement on Good Friday. I welcome on behalf of the Liberal Democrats the ringing endorsements of the Irish Parliament yesterday for both the peace settlement and the agreement. We should not underestimate how important it is that the relationship with the Republic remains on the level it is, and how important it is that its people endorse whatever happens under the peace settlement.
On Monday, the Liberal Democrats made clear with our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), our position on the agreement. I whole-heartedly repeat on behalf of the party our congratulations and endorsement of the agreement. We generally welcome the Bill, but we do not believe that it is simply a procedural matter, as it has been portrayed by some hon. Members today. It is more than that. It is an important next step on the road to peace. It has to be recognised as such, and not seen simply as a small piece of enabling legislation.
My family come from Ireland—from Donegal. I have large contingents in Belfast, Donegal and Limerick. On Good Friday, I rang up a number of my family both in Belfast and in parts of Donegal. There was genuine euphoria both from people who were hard-line republicans and from people who were very much committed to another route. They saw the agreement as a real step on the road to peace.
I have been going over and back to the Province and to the Republic all my life. It is sad that, in the past 25 to 30 years, the hassles that my relatives have had to put up with have been typical of what ordinary families—ordinary working people—have had to put up with to bring up their families and further their careers.
We welcome the Bill, because we must not waste the opportunity. I find it bizarre that hon. Members on the Unionist Bench feel that consensus is somehow not to be trusted, and regard the fact that parties support each other across the Floor of the House as a conspiracy. I find that rather sad. The public not only in Northern Ireland but across the whole of the United Kingdom have begun to abhor the adversarial way in which the political system operates. They want to see more consensus.
On the streets of Belfast, one would find that an awful lot of people want consensus from their politicians rather than seeing them constantly try to pick faults with each other. Yes, they want argument, and they want the principles and practice to be put forward, but they also want to see their politicians make progress, not constantly go back into the past.
There are clearly a number of problems with the agreement. They will have to be hammered out and argued through over the months, indeed the years, to come, but it is the implementation of the agreement that raises the real issues. The agreement relies on good will. Without good will, it has no hope. That good will needs to be buoyant, and to be buoyed up as we move towards the referendum. The referendum is the first test of the will of the people and whether they have the good will to carry things forward.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) was right to say in an intervention that only time would show whether this was a good agreement. It is only in the months, the years, the decades, to come, that, if the agreement is part of a process to bring lasting peace, people will look back, despite their opposition, and say that it was a price worth paying.
I disagreed with the shadow Secretary of State when he said that the legislation set up a shadow assembly which did not have the same significance as the assembly to come. I think that it has perhaps even more significance. What happens in shadow organisations for local authorities and the Scottish and Welsh assemblies—the relationships, commitments and working practices that are built up—frames the future. The Bill is extremely important. Yes, it sets up a shadow authority, but it is important that that works, and that we recognise as the House of Commons that it is an important step.
I do not want to keep the House any longer, because hon. Members wish to make their contributions, but I commend the Bill to the House. Liberal Democrats strongly support the Government's approach, and trust that the Bill will have a successful passage this evening.

Ms Helen Southworth: It is a privilege to speak in this debate, and to bring the voice of my constituents here today, but above all it is a joy to see the Bill brought before the House. It is a significant step forward into a new future for people in Northern Ireland.
People in my constituency have a special relationship with the people in Northern Ireland. They have a special reason to share the desire of so many Northern Irish people for a democratic and lasting peace, which this debate represents. The Belfast agreement states:
It is recognised that victims have a right to remember as well as to contribute to a changed society.
I ask the House to take a moment to remember Tim Parry and Jonathan Ball—two young boys from my constituency. In March 1993, Tim and Jonathan were killed at the hands of the IRA. The IRA had placed bombs in Bridge street in our town centre. The terror of that bombing and the shock and pain of those two deaths had a terrible impact on our local community. The families of Tim and Jonathan still live every day with that pain.
Last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came to Warrington to join the children's families and many other local people. They wanted to remember as well as to look forward. I know that she noticed the grief that many people there still feel. My constituents know that, for the past 30 years, people in Northern Ireland have faced that terror and pain day after day. More than 3,200 people have been killed in those decades. Their families feel the loss, day in and day out.
The agreement clearly states:
The achievement of a peaceful and just society would be the true memorial to the victims of violence.
That is what I am here to say today on behalf of my constituents. The voice of the victims and the desire of people for peace is being heard in the House this evening, and it will be heard again on 22 May in the referendum. I am confident, because I hear it from my constituents, that the voice will say, "Peace will be a living memorial. We want no more deaths."
My constituents strongly welcome the reaching of an agreement. We in Warrington are already working to play our part and to make a positive contribution to the success of the peace process. We are building an international peace centre, where young people from the north and south of Ireland and the north-west of England can work together in an atmosphere of tolerance and understanding. Reconciliation is part of our responsibility in Warrington, in the north-west and in England. We recognise that, and we accept it.
The Bill begins the implementation of the agreement—the implementation of the steps towards a lasting and democratic peace. It is a radical step forward—an assertion of the power of the ballot box over the bullet and the bomb—and it has not come before time. It offers the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity of a new future for which they have all worked. On behalf of my constituents, especially on behalf of Tim and Jonathan's families, I support the process within the Bill wholeheartedly, and I hope that the whole House will do so.

Mr. William Thompson: I can remember as a boy sitting at home listening to the coronation of our Queen. I can remember the words

coming over the radio: "This is London." I was glad that I belonged to a nation like that. I felt proud that I was a member of that nation. I thought that this was a nation that believed in democracy and law and order, and that it would defend its citizens. Like many other people in Northern Ireland, I felt that we were loyal members of the Union.
Then the IRA and violence came along, and I received a rude awakening, because I discovered that the Government and the people I thought would defend Northern Ireland against terrorism were not prepared to do it. Many men and women in Northern Ireland thought, like me, that they should join the security forces and seek to serve in the fight against terrorism. Many of them gave their lives, but we discovered that successive British Governments did not care tuppence about them, and that, at the end of the day, they were only numbers.
The British Government were not prepared to defeat terrorists. Ministers came to the Dispatch Box and said that terrorists would never succeed, that they would always defend us against terrorism, and that those who murdered and killed would be brought to justice; but, at the end of the day, that was nonsense. At the end of the day, they were more concerned about what Europe thought, about what southern Ireland—the Republic of Ireland—thought, and about what America thought. They were far more concerned about that than about the people of Northern Ireland. When the Government found that they were under all that pressure and discovered that they had not the will to defeat terrorism, at the end of the day they negotiated with the terrorists.
That is what happened in Northern Ireland. The Government failed to defeat terrorism, so they decided to appease the terrorists and to talk to them. What we have seen at Stormont in the past few months has been not a peace process, but an appeasement process. Those who were responsible for terrorism have been rewarded.
We have heard all the arguments about decommissioning, but not one weapon has been decommissioned; we have heard all the arguments about how parties must give a commitment to peace, but no commitment has been given. We now find that those who murdered the people of Northern Ireland will be able to get into an assembly and an executive, and use that position to further their aim of a united Ireland. No matter what the Government say, those are the facts of life.
I have over the years been disappointed in the Conservative party—the party which was supposed to be a Unionist party and the party of law and order, but which started the talks. Because the Conservatives started the process, they cannot say anything against it now it has been completed. That is why we have heard the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), agreeing with it tonight. They started it, so they have to agree with it.
I thought that I was a full citizen of the United Kingdom, but I have discovered in the agreement document that I am no longer a full citizen of the United Kingdom. I find that the Government have conceded the self-determination of the people of all the island of Ireland. That is the reality, albeit that I, for a little while, because it is legitimate, because it is my present wish and because it would be wrong to go against it, will simply be allowed to stay in the United Kingdom.
That is a poor Union. I thought that the Union was a family of people sharing common interests, but I now discover that I shall be treated like a scorned wife and got rid of as soon as possible. The agreement shows that the Secretary of State, whoever that will be, will look at every election and dissect every poll so as to determine, as quickly as possible, whether a referendum can be held to put me out of the United Kingdom. That is the situation we face as a result of the agreement.
I am glad that I had nothing to do with the agreement. I am glad to see that the majority of Members of Parliament for the Ulster Unionist party will vote no in the referendum, as will a majority of Unionist Members of Parliament of all parties. Not only that, but I am glad that the Secretary of State has done a good thing in sending the document to every person and home in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Beggs: Almost every one.

Mr. Thompson: —almost every one. The more they read the document, the more they see how little the United Kingdom is mentioned in it, and the more they see how green the document is, the less easily they will be persuaded to vote yes in the referendum.
I trust that the day will come when the people of this land and the Members of this Parliament will recognise that they will never get peace in Northern Ireland through such stupidity. Governments have been trying this sort of stupidity for 25 years, and every time it has been a failure. There is only one way to get peace in Northern Ireland, and that is, first, to treat every citizen of Northern Ireland as an equal citizen within the United Kingdom, and, secondly, to defeat terrorism, wherever it comes from—

Mr. Mike Gapes: Including the Loyalist Volunteer Force.

Mr. Beggs: Yes, the LVF, too.

Mr. Thompson: Whether it comes from the LVF, the UVF, the UDF any other "F', it is only by defeating terrorism that we will ever have peace in Northern Ireland—when those who have bombs and bullets no longer have the capability to use them to kill and maim.
Last week, the president of Sinn Fein thanked the IRA for its contribution to the peace process. He said: "This is but a phase; it is but another step towards our ultimate aim of a united Ireland." Now this document puts the IRA in power, and enables its members to continue to pursue their devious paths to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. I hope that that aim will be defeated, and that the people of Northern Ireland will again profess that they are full citizens of the United Kingdom, not second-class citizens.

Mr. Brian White: I speak as someone who grew up in Ulster and wants to support the Union. Do you not realise that comments such as those that were made earlier, and that you are making, do more to undermine the Union than the actions of Sinn Fein? Such comments will undermine support for the

Union. You are being counter-productive. You will not achieve the objective that you have set yourself. You are doing the people of Northern Ireland a disservice.

Mr. Thompson: I do not like being compared to Sinn Fein. I am a democrat. I believe in the ballot box, and I shall accept the results of the ballot box and seek to change the result democratically if I do not like it. I am not involved in terrorism or ticking bombs. I am not trying to get my way by violent means.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I suspect that whatever is said here today by the very few Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland will be futile, in the sense that it will not alter a full stop or comma in the proposed legislation. However, I believe that people should appreciate that the agreement is the product of terror. Terror and terrorist violence produced the policy change that led the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) to say, in January 1991, that Britain no longer had any selfish economic or strategic reason or interest for staying in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: No. I shall give way in due course. I am simply saying that that was the start of a policy change.
I listened to the touching speech by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth). She is right about the bomb in Warrington, because that year two bombs, albeit of very different kinds, had a dramatic effect in developing the Conservative Government's policy: the bomb at Warrington and the bomb at the Baltic exchange.
For 25 years, Northern Ireland was a place apart within the United Kingdom. It was a place where terror could be encapsulated in some sort of safety net that, by and large—there were exceptions—protected the rest of the United Kingdom from the level and degree of violence that saturated Northern Ireland.
Bombs like that at Warrington were two a penny in Northern Ireland; they happened regularly. That is not to suggest that the bomb at Warrington was any less poignant than some of the bombs that took many more lives—including those of young children—in Northern Ireland. However, the bomb at Warrington, like the bomb in the Baltic exchange, was on the British mainland. It was not a place to which terrorists could be sent back in an internal exile process—British citizens, sent back to a part of the United Kingdom because that was where wicked terrorists should properly be kept.
Prevention of terrorism legislation was largely for keeping terror in Northern Ireland. As the late Reginald Maudling once said, for 25 years a level of violence, in human and economic terms, was acceptable in Northern Ireland because the British Treasury and the British public could take it—because, after all, these people, these Ulster Defence Regiment men and Royal Ulster Constabulary men, were being murdered in a strange part of the United Kingdom—indeed, a part of the United Kingdom that many citizens of the mainland did not even fully appreciate was part of the United Kingdom.
For reasons that I have given, those two bombs—at Warrington and the Baltic exchange—changed all that. The bomb at the Baltic exchange is said to have cost more than all the damages paid out in Northern Ireland for death, personal injury and property between 1969 and 1992. Violence had reached a level on the British mainland that was, in economic and human terms, a la Warrington, unacceptable for first-class British citizens living on the main land.

Mr. Winnick: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not forget for a moment the 25 people who were butchered in Birmingham, near my constituency, in November 1974. I do not for a moment wish to minimise the violence inflicted on the people of both communities in Northern Ireland—far from it—and I have condemned it on every occasion, but I hope that he will not give the impression that the violence in the United Kingdom started from the terrible tragedies in Warrington and the Baltic exchange. Remember what happened in Birmingham.

Mr. McCartney: I take the hon. Gentleman's point entirely. Indeed, he will recall that I said that the violence was essentially in, but was certainly not confined to, Northern Ireland. However, we are talking about 3,200 dead in Northern Ireland. I entirely accept that 27 in Birmingham was a terrible atrocity. We are talking about 299 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—279 of them murdered by the IRA and 11 by associated republican terrorist organisations.

Ms Southworth: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with my constituents that the time has come to move on, and move forward toward a peaceful settlement?

Mr. McCartney: I think that is a very lofty sentiment, which many people would endorse; but somewhat facile expressions of emotional sentimentality, while perfectly legitimate, do not answer the question in Northern Ireland.
This agreement permits terrorists who have carried out outrageous crimes against humanity in Northern Ireland to be released within two years. It permits those same terrorists to retain every ounce of Semtex and every gun. It does not require any party representing those paramilitary groups to do anything more than
use any influence they may"—
"may"; my emphasis—
have
to persuade those groups to give up their guns.
No one who has lived in Northern Ireland and who is intimately familiar with the IRA believes for a second, at any time, that a single gun or a single ounce of Semtex will be decommissioned until the IRA has obtained its ultimate objective of a united Ireland.
I object to the immorality and the injustice that has been done by the release of prisoners in the service of nothing but political expediency. I object to the suggestion that victims can be palmed off with kind words and the promise of a possible memorial in Londonderry. I think that that debases and diminishes their suffering.
It is very easy to travel lightly over another man's wound. It is easy for Members of this House of Commons to say, "Let us put the past behind us." Will it be easy for

members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who have given their limbs and their lives in order to place dedicated terrorists behind bars, to see them walking the streets?
Is it justice that those former terrorists may become members of a community police force? I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have read the agreement carefully. I have also listened to the claims of representatives of Sinn Fein; to Mr. Durkin, who is a senior figure in the SDLP; and to Dr. Garrett Fitzgerald, a former Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland. They have all stated that former terrorists will be eligible to serve in some form of acceptable community police service for Northern Ireland. They may all be wrong, but that is the position.
The police force in Northern Ireland is being demoralised by the early release of people that they have risked their lives to put out of society. They will see them walking the streets and possibly operating in a police force, while they see their own forces demoralised—all for the price of an agreement.
After the treaty of Utrecht, the first British Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole, said:
They now ring the bells, but they will soon wring their hands.
That was the case. We forget the euphoria that greeted Neville Chamberlain in 1938. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) smiles and laughs, but the same sort of euphoria greeted Mr. Chamberlain. People hung out of the windows and cheered because he had the infamous piece of paper that would prevent bombs from falling on London.
This agreement may be a little longer, but it might be no more substantial in preventing the IRA from returning to London and to places such as Canary Wharf, Hammersmith bridge and Heathrow airport when it decides that the political process has, for the present, nothing further to offer it.
I am always amused to some extent when hon. Members who are among the greatest peripatetics in Northern Ireland stand up and tell the House what the people of Northern Ireland want—what their feelings and desires are. I have lived in Northern Ireland, raised a family and carried on a profession in Northern Ireland for 62 years. My understanding and my feelings about what the people of Northern Ireland want bear very little relation to what casual visitors tell me are the feelings of the people of Northern Ireland.
I object to a process whereby, as shadow Secretary of State, the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland visited the Maze prison on 16 October 1996 and met two people she did not know: Michael and Johnny. She then told a press conference that Michael and Johnny were two of the unsung heroes of the peace process. Guess who Michael and Johnny turned out to be? Johnny was Johnny Adair, who was doing 16 years for organising up to 20 murders of Catholics; and Michael was Michael Stone, another loyalist psychopath. He went to the Milltown cemetery equipped with several revolvers and bombs, and murdered three or four Catholics and wounded many others. He was described as an unsung hero of the peace process.
We now know why those unsung heroes were so much in favour of the peace process—because they were induced and bribed to support it by the promise of early release. Once they are out of prison, they will return to a


life that is depicted on the murals in the H blocks, which say, "The only good Catholic is a dead Taig." We are told that those people, upon their release, will say, "I'm finished with violence, and I won't join in any more." If the House believes that, it will believe anything.
Let me say in closing that I am not opposed to peace. [Interruption.] Labour Members may snigger. However, I am opposed to a process and an agreement that I really believe will create in Northern Ireland a state in transit. States in transit all over the world, from Yugoslavia to Lebanon, provide a field day for warring paramilitary groups, who exploit and inflame the communities they claim to represent. I fear that that will be the ultimate legacy of this peace about which there has been so much euphoria, hype and hysteria.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I shall be brief. All hon. Members must welcome steps towards peace—several hon. Members have spoken about that—but it is reasonable that people should have questions about it. I support elections and I support the agreement in principle, but we must ask whether we should look for peace at any price. It is important that we do not. If this peace agreement is to work, it must be built on firm foundations, not on sand.
Senator Mitchell should be congratulated and thanked for his work. Can the House recall his principles? I shall remind hon. Members of them. They state:
Accordingly, we recommend that the parties to such negotiations affirm their total and absolute commitment to"—
among other things—
the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations … To urge that 'punishment' killings and beatings stop and to take effective steps to prevent such actions.
It is painfully obvious that there has been no disarmament and that punishment killings and beatings continue. We should remember that the UDP was expelled briefly from the talks because of its involvement in killings. Earlier this year, Sinn Fein was expelled from the talks for three weeks because of its association with two killings. Three weeks' expulsion from the talks for two lives seems a little cheap. Punishment beatings continue on both sides, but particularly from the IRA. The police and Ministers know that the IRA has been heavily involved in such beatings throughout the talks. Are we being honest? Are the foundations of this agreement firm?
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) started the process of discussions in 1993, we talked about decommissioning all weapons before terrorists would be admitted to the talks. That condition was then reduced to some weapons as a guarantee of good faith. No weapons have been handed in so far, and the talks have finished. We are voting today on elections in Northern Ireland. Do we expect to see weapons handed in immediately after those elections? When will the decommissioning process begin?
We have heard that IRA murderers and other prisoners will be set free. We must ask what message that sends to those who intend to continue with terrorism—because some may. We must remember that they are not political prisoners: they are criminals, gangsters, hoodlums, extortionists, racketeers and drug dealers. They are rightly

sentenced, and every hon. Member has condemned the crimes with which they are associated. What conditions will be imposed upon them, and will they be enforced? Must weapons be surrendered before they are released?
We should mention the victims, as the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) did. Both sides—the IRA and the loyalist terrorists—are rather rich from their drug running, criminal activities, extortion, protection rackets and so on. We might expect some evidence of good faith from them: perhaps they should put some of the proceeds towards compensation. That may be a vain thought, but I voice it nevertheless.
Over the past 30 years, the peace, such as it has been, has been maintained by the security forces, both the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces. I served out there with the armed forces. I do not say that the armed forces were perfect. I served with the RUC. The RUC would certainly not say that we were perfect either, because we had some pretty ding-dong battles or disagreements. I would not say that members of the RUC were perfect, but I would say that they were mostly pretty good. I would say that they were very brave. I would particularly say that the Catholics in the RUC were outstandingly brave, as they, above all others, had to move house and often suffered family separations because of their standing in the RUC.
I know that there is to be a commission on policing for Northern Ireland. I wonder why. I ask Ministers to refer to their own press notice of 7 April, which quotes from a digest of information on the Northern Ireland criminal justice system. It states:
More than half of all respondents reported that they thought there were too few Catholics in the police force.
We would all agree with that. It continues:
The main reason given for this by Catholic respondents was that Catholics would not join because they 'fear intimidation or attack on themselves or their relatives."'
Why do we need a commission? We already know why there are so few Catholics in the RUC, and we regret it. That report stands by itself.
I was taught at school never to pay danegeld. There is no real and tangible movement yet by terrorist organisations. No weapons have been surrendered, and punishment beatings and murders continue. I wish the agreement well and I support elections, but if the agreement is built on sand, I fear that we may all rue the day that we pass it.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I am mindful of the time and of the fact that under the timetable motion the vote will be taken in 12 minutes' time. I know also that the Minister wants a reasonable time to answer many of the points that have been raised in the debate, so I shall be brief.
I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). Opposition Members welcome the agreement and congratulate all those who have brought the negotiations to the present position. We believe, as the Prime Minister suggested this afternoon, that this is a stage in a process and that there is still a long way to go before we can say that the Government and all those involved have achieved a binding peace settlement.


We were grateful for the Minister's reference to the triple lock. Can he give the House an assurance again this evening that he can foresee no circumstances in which that triple lock could be broken? If the present agreement fails, the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the British Government may consider it necessary to present other proposals that may go outside the triple lock agreement.
In his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned that this was the first of two Bills. It is our understanding that the prisoner issue requires primary legislation. Do his comments mean that the prisoner issue will be incorporated in the constitutional Bill to which he referred, which may come before the House in the next Session?
Two crucial issues were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell relating to assurances in the Prime Minister's letter, which has been placed in the Library. They primarily refer to paragraph 25 of strand 1 of the agreement, which deals with the means of removing Ministers and people in office from the assembly. The Prime Minister's letter states:
This letter is to let you know that if, during the course of the first six months of the shadow Assembly or the Assembly itself, these provisions have been shown to be ineffective, we will support changes to these provisions to enable them to be made properly effective in preventing such people from holding office.
The words
we will support changes to these provisions
are somewhat ambiguous. Can the Minister clarify whether legislation brought before the House, perhaps in the constitutional Bill to which he referred, could make changes to implement those ideas, and that we do not have to rely exclusively on legislation emanating from the new assembly to make those changes? The wording is ambiguous and it would help enormously if the matter could be clarified.
On decommissioning, the letter goes on to say that
the process of decommissioning should begin straight away.
Can the Minister give the House some assurance that relevant measures have started? If not, when will they start? Can we have further details about how those are being informed?

Mr. Paul Murphy: With the leave of the House, I shall do my best to answer some of the points that have been made in the debate.
The shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), raised several issues. The letter to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was placed in the Library of the House this afternoon.
We will deal with decommissioning and the holding of office, which was raised by several hon. Members, in Committee later this evening. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered some points made by the Leader of the Opposition today. He referred to the fact that decommissioning is an indispensable part of the agreement. In answer to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) on the apparatus for decommissioning, there is no obstacle in the way of decommissioning. The legal technicalities are in place, the schemes in place, and it is up to the organisations that hold illegal arms to decommission them.
This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the fact that the right to hold office is a matter for the assembly, within its code of conduct and Standing Orders. There are aspects of the agreement that deal specifically with that. My right hon. Friend said that he would review the matter in six months' time. I shall return to the subject later this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made an exceptionally powerful speech. He referred to unity of purpose within the new structures. All of us would pay tribute to him for his valuable contribution over two years in the talks.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) referred to numbers in the assembly and the electoral system. My only answer is that those issues were specifically dealt with in the agreement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently reviewing electoral fraud as a result of evidence given to her by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the forum committee, which did good work on the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) spoke of the filling of vacancies by by-elections or substitution. That, as I said earlier, is a matter for consultation with the parties. The Bill allows for the Secretary of State to take into account the result of that consultation.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to decommissioning and the powers of the Secretary of State. They will be dealt with later, in Committee.
The House will agree with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) in condemning the recent murders that have taken place. Again, the filling of vacancies will be a matter for consultation. I agree with him on numbers and the new assembly. I also agree that the assembly will successfully fill the democratic deficit.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised various interesting points. I wish the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) well and hope to see him soon in the House. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the three independent chairmen did excellent work in the talks, which would not have succeeded without them. I agree, too, that the Bill is not an unimportant issue and that it paves the way for local democracy.
In a moving speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) reminded us about the victims of violence, especially in Britain but also in the rest of the United Kingdom. We all listened with great interest to the tribute that she paid to the people in her constituency.
I did not agree with anything that the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) said, but in the referendum the people of Northern Ireland will make up their minds about the matters to which he referred.
I did not agree with much that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) said. I accept that he has lived in Northern Ireland all his life and practised there as a barrister, but it is for the women and men of Northern Ireland to decide on 22 May what they think of the agreement.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred to the agreement in not particularly glowing terms. I believe that he thinks sincerely that peace should come about in


Northern Ireland, but he has some doubts about the agreement. The agreement was the work of the parties in the talks process, not only the two Governments. We have to accept that the referendum is the time that will tell.
Finally, I can assure the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) that there will be a separate Bill for the release of prisoners issue. I agree that there is a long way to go before there is a firm settlement. I agree also that, ultimately, the triple lock must be put into effect. There can be no imposition on the people of Northern Ireland, but the parties have decided, the House will decide later tonight and the referendum is to take place on 22 May. I believe that there will be a resounding yes to the agreement from the people of Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].

Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order [this day].

NORTHERN IRELAND (ELECTIONS) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any costs incurred by a government department in relation to the election to the New Northern Ireland Assembly or the filling of vacancies.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill

Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day].

[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Clause 1

THE ASSEMBLY

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 13, leave out '108' and insert '90'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 24, in page 1, line 13, leave out '108' and insert '54'.
No. 25, in page 1, leave out line 18 and insert—
'(5) Northern Ireland shall be divided into nine constituencies created by amalgamating two joining parliamentary constituencies and each of these nine constituencies shall return six members.'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'six' and insert `five'.

Mr. Ross: The amendments bring to the attention of the Committee the number of Members that should comprise the assembly. The amendments fall into two groups and I hope that it will be understood that amendments Nos. 3 and 4 go together, as do Nos. 24 and 25. I hope, Mr. Lord, that you will permit two separate Divisions when we come to the end of the debate on the amendments. They set out alternative ways of creating what I think would be more reasonable numbers for the Northern Ireland assembly.
Amendment No. 3 would reduce to 90 the total number of Members, and the means of doing that is set out in amendment No. 4, which provides that instead of having six Members per parliamentary constituency we should have only five, which would give a total of 90.
Over many years—since the single transferable vote system of elections was introduced in Northern Ireland—five has been about the representation in every constituency. It is argued that if representation is less than five, we do not have a fair spread. If there is very much more than five, we end up with such a wide variety of representatives that folk with less than one seventh of the vote will be elected. The elected body could find itself at the mercy of a tiny minority of people who were elected late in the counts in the proportional STV system. Four or five have therefore been the preferred numbers for each constituency.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is able to catch your eye, Mr. Lord, he will detail the consequences of my analysis in the context of Scotland and Wales. It is obvious that representation in Northern Ireland is far higher per head of population than it is in Scotland or Wales. Given that Scotland has a full-blown legislative majority rule system, if it can handle that system with a relatively small number of Members, there is no good reason—the same goes for Wales—for having 108 Members in Northern Ireland.
I have grave concerns about having 90 Members. For an efficient and sensible assembly in Northern Ireland, 90 Members is far too many.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 would reduce representation from 108 to 54. To achieve a fairer spread across the community, the amendments would tie each two adjoining parliamentary constituencies together, thereby creating nine electoral areas with six Members per area, giving a total of 54. I would be happy with only five per area, but others have said that there should be six. That would be closer to the number of Members who sat in the old Stormont parliamentary system. 1 think that 52 Members were elected to Stormont. They were able to operate in a perfectly satisfactory fashion, given the powers that they had, which were much more extensive than those that the new assembly will ever have.
No one has told us what sort of salaries and allowances will be paid to the proposed 108 Members. I see no good reason for expending moneys on 108 when we could have half that number being paid more than would be paid to 108, with better back-up and secretarial allowances so that they could operate properly within the Northern Ireland context.
I have set out the reasoning behind the two sets of amendments. If the Minister says that the Government will be happy with 90 Members, I shall be reasonably content. If the Minister says that 54 would be a much better number, I shall be very happy. I think that 54 Members would be reasonable representation. Wales, with a much larger electorate, has 60 Members. Scotland, with a vastly larger electorate, has 129. Why should Northern Ireland have so many Members? There is no good reason for it.
I have great pleasure in proposing the amendments. I express the sincere hope that the Government will accept reason on this issue, if on no other, so that we might arrive at a far more sensible and better arrangement for the government of Northern Ireland and for the operation of the elected body within it.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I fear that I must recommend that the Committee reject the amendments.
I understand what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) is saying about Wales and Scotland—Wales with 60 Members and Scotland with 129 although they both have larger populations. The Government did not decide that there should be 108 Members. It was the agreement that resulted in that number. During the strand 1 negotiations and talks, which I had the privilege of chairing, and which continued for many months, numbers was a matter of considerable concern. Other parties in the talks wanted a different system of election altogether. Some wanted the additional member system while others wanted a list system. In the end, the talks came to the conclusion that the best system to use was the single transferable vote, because it had been tried and tested in Northern Ireland.
In addition, the participants in the talks believed that by having six instead of five Members there was an opportunity for greater inclusivity in the assembly when it was elected. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the leader of his party, with the leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour party and other parties in the talks, were in agreement with that. For that reason, I fear that I must ask the Committee to reject the amendments.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the Minister's point but I share the views of our friend the hon. Member for

Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) when he spoke earlier about federalism. I happen to believe in federalism and I have argued for it for a good many years.
This is one of the opportunities that we have as a Parliament to come to a decision. Surely one of the duties of Parliament is to vote supply, which involves the public purse.
I have listened to the arguments. I understand why people had to accept some provisions in the agreement, but something is out of kilter. If we go for 108 Members, there would be one for every 10,900 of the electorate. In Scotland, the ratio is one to 30,613 and in Wales it is one to 36,717. Until the English regions start to develop, England has, on average, one hon. Member for every 69,000 people. In the early days, we debated what would be necessary for committee responsibility and proper coverage throughout the Province, and it was decided that 90 would be sufficient.
I understand the reasoning for 54 Members. 1 was involved in many discussions over the years that resulted in our going for a unicameral system rather than for one with a Commons and a Senate. If my memory is correct, the old Northern Ireland Parliament had 52 Members in the Commons and 26 in the Senate. To deal with the changing political pattern it was decided to go for a membership of 90, but I am not convinced that broadening the scope will help good governance. It will certainly add pressure to public finances, so in future I do not want to hear any hon. Member complaining about subventions to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the large figure of 108 Members is giving rise in local government in Northern Ireland to the feeling that meaningful powers may not be transferred to it?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I picked up some vibrations from not being invited to the assembly or to engage in the forum talks, but, being the party's Chief Whip and representing its interests here. I remained in touch with what was going on. The Minister was correct when he said that discussions were taking place. To the best of my knowledge, most of the later discussions resulted in a compromise from 118 to 108 Members. There is some speculation about whether that is to keep people happy or whether a journalist is producing figures to entice other journalists to stand. Media reports suggest that each Member of the Assembly will receive a salary of £32,000 to £38,000. We have not had official figures. If those figures are correct, councils will think that the Government's commitment to giving powers to them will be set aside.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Before I call the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), I should point out that it is not normal for one hon. Member to move two amendments that are entirely different. I propose to put the Question on amendment No. 3 and it will be up to the hon. Gentleman to decide whether he wants to press it to a vote.

Mr. Ross: It was remiss of me not to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) to move the second group of amendments. 1 am greatly attracted to a provision for 
54 Members because


that would add to their status. My hon. Friend gave some figures. If there were 90 Members, each one would represent an average of just over 13,000 people. If there were 54, the average would be 21,814, which is still well below the averages for Scotland and Wales. Any rational, logical examination shows no good reason for that vast disparity.
If we applied the Scottish figures there would be 38 Members of the Assembly; application of the Welsh figures would result in 32 Members. Those figures are probably too low, but 50, 54 or 55 seem sensible and reasonable. The Government are not prepared to accept that, but I cannot accept the Minister's explanation. The law is not made by an elected body in Belfast. This country's law is supposed to be made in this Chamber, which is where it should be made.
I see no good reason to go well over the top with such a huge number of people. It is quite unrealistic, unless of course it is for some other reason. On Second Reading, I gave what I thought was the real reason; I said that the only possible reason for going down this road is to ensure the election of representatives of murder and terror organisations. That is unacceptable to any decent man or woman.
For me, the issue contains not only the question of reasonableness but the questions of principle, honour and decency for ordinary men and women. We should not bend the rules to get murderers or representatives of terrorism elected. It is clear that the threat is, "If you do not provide a system that will allow us to get elected, we will go back to the gun and the bullet and the things that we do best." If the Minister wants to live with the immorality, or perhaps the amorality, of the Government's proposals, on his head be it. I certainly cannot go along with them.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 274.

Division No. 252]
[8.26 pm


AYES


Forsythe, Clifford
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Robertson, Laurence (Tewkb'ry)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Rev. Martin Smyth and


Thompson, William
Mr. Roy Beggs.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Begg, Miss Anne


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Alexander, Douglas
Bennett, Andrew F


Allan, Richard
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Berry, Roger


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Best, Harold


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Blackman, Liz


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blears, Ms Hazel


Atherton, Ms Candy
Borrow, David


Austin, John
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Baker, Norman
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Barnes, Harry
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Barron, Kevin
Browne, Desmond


Battle, John
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Bayley, Hugh
Buck, Ms Karen


Beard, Nigel
Burnett, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Butler, Mrs Christine





Byers, Stephen
Hepburn, Stephen



Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Heppell, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hewitt, Ms patricia



Canavan, Dennis
Hill, Keith


Cann, Jamie
Hinchliffe, David


Caplin, Ivor
Home Robertson, John


Casale, Roger
Hoon, Geoffrey


Caton, Martin
Hope, Phil


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Chidgey, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howells, Dr Kim


Church, Ms Judith
Humble, Mrs Joan


Clapham, Michael
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Ingram, Adam


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Jamieson, David


Clelland, David
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Clwyd, Ann
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Coaker, Vernon
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Colman, Tony
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Corston, Ms Jean
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cotter, Brian
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cousins, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cranston, Ross
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Crausby, David
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cummings, John
Khabra, Piara S


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dafis, Cynog
Kirkwood, Archy


Darvill, Keith
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davidson, Ian
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Dean, Mrs Janet
Laxton, Bob


Dismore, Andrew
Lepper, David


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Leslie, Christopher


Donohoe, Brian H
Levitt, Tom


Doran, Frank
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dowd, Jim
Linton, Martin


Drown, Ms Julia
Livingstone, Ken


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Livsey, Richard


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Love, Andrew


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McAllion, John


Edwards, Huw
McAvoy, Thomas


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Fearn, Ronnie
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McFall, John


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McGrady, Eddie


Follett, Barbara
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mackinaly, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McNulty, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
MacShane, Denis


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Mactaggart, Fiona


Godman, Dr Norman A
McWilliam, John


Goggins, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mallon, Seamus


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gorrie, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Grant, Bernie
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Martlew, Eric


Grogan, John
Maxton, John


Gunnell, John
Meale, Alan


Hain, Peter
Merron, Gillian


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Milburn, Alan



Hanson, David
Moore, Michael


Harvey, Nick
Moran, Ms Margaret


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N))


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Morley, Elliot


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie






Mudie, George
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Norris, Dan
Squire, Ms Rachel


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Olner, Bill
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


O'Neill, Martin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stoate, Dr Howard


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stott, Roger


Pearson, Ian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pickthall, Colin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pike, Peter L
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Plaskitt, James
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pond, Chris
(Dewsbury)


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Timms, Stephen


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Todd, Mark


Primarolo, Dawn
Touhig, Don


Quinn, Lawrie
Trickett, Jon


Radice, Giles
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Raynsford, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Vaz, Keith


Rendel, David
Wallace, James


Robertson, Rt Hon George
Ward, Ms Claire


(Hamilton S)
Wareing, Robert N



Rooker, Jeff
Watts, David


Rooney, Terry
White Brain


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rowlands, Ted
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Roy, Frank
William, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Willis, Phil


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wills, Michael


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Winnick, David


Salter, Martin
Woolas, Phil


Sanders, Adrian
Worthington, Tony


Savidge, Malcolm
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wyatt, Derek


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Hon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

THE ELECTION

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 25, leave out 'local' and insert 'Parliamentary'.
This is a probing amendment. I am curious to know why the Government want to use the local rather than the parliamentary electoral roll for this purpose. I am sure that there is a good reason, but it is not immediately apparent to me. I assume that some people are on one register but not on the other. What is the precise reason for using the register of local electors rather than the electoral register used for parliamentary elections? Will the Minister elucidate that point?

Mr. Paul Murphy: The first reason is that the franchise reflects that which will be used for the Scottish Parliament. The second reason is that nine members of the House of Lords will be able to vote and we should not deny them that opportunity in Northern Ireland. The third

reason is that it gives European Union citizens the right to vote in these elections. But the main reason is that it puts us on a level playing field with the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Mackinlay: I fully accept what my hon. Friend says, but he or the electoral officer needs to emphasise a note of caution throughout Northern Ireland. Some people on the electoral roll will have votes in a number of places, as indeed some hon. Members have: they have votes in Westminster and in their residential constituencies. We must avoid people—through not malice, but ignorance of the law—foolishly and wrongly exercising their vote on two occasions on the one day. That should be taken on board. Will that not be facilitated by this measure?

Mr. Murphy: I take into account the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Ross: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 2, leave out lines 12 and 13.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 2, leave out lines 15 and 16.
No. 8, in page 2, leave out line 17.
No. 9, in page 2, line 17, at end insert
'which for the initial election shall be £500.00.'.

Mr. Ross: These are, to some extent, probing amendments. Amendment No. 9 tries to introduce a £500 deposit. The Government may wish to introduce a deposit level in regulations rather than in the Bill. If so, I would be perfectly content with that, but perhaps we could be told what sort of sum the Government are thinking about.
On amendment No. 22, the Bill states:
(5) The Secretary of State may by order make provision about the election or any matter relating to it.
(6) In particular, an order may—

(a) provide for an alteration made after a specified date in a register of local electors to be disregarded;
(b) make provision about deposits",

which I have already covered. I am concerned about subsections (5) and (6)(a).
I want to know exactly what the Government are thinking of in writing subsection (5) into the Bill. I am sure that there must be some good reason for it. The Government seem to be taking fairly wide powers to themselves in this matter. They are talking about making provision about not only the election but
any matter relating to it.
Is that the point at which the Government will examine identification of electors, given the absolute scandal of the election fraud which may have caused the loss of one seat to the Democratic Unionist party at the last general election? This is a serious issue.
If the Government are thinking of making some provision in regard to electoral fraud and to people voting more than once, which troubles the hon. Member for


Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), the Minister should tell the Committee exactly what is being done to combat electoral fraud and to ensure that the electoral process is honest, because IRA-Sinn Fein are not in the slightest worried about complying with UK electoral law; they are out to break it in every way they can. That being so, we should be told whether the Government are thinking of other means of identification for both the assembly and the referendum.
We have not yet been told anything about how people will be identified in either of the electoral turnouts. We need to know, because the parties will want to have a clear idea of what they will be expected to do in the run-up to the assembly elections and, indeed, to the referendum. Therefore, as the Government are taking this very wide power to make provision about the election and
any matter relating to it"—
it is not just some matters—perhaps we can be told exactly what is intended.
Subsection (6)(a) says that an order may
provide for an alteration made after a specified date in a register of local electors to be disregarded".
There is a cut-off date whereby a name can be placed on the electoral register. I am one of those folk who have always taken a fairly black-and-white view of the electoral register. As the Minister and the Committee will know, the register is compiled using electors' place of residence on 15 September in Northern Ireland and 10 October in Great Britain. That extra month in Northern Ireland gives the parties, the chief electoral officer and his deputies an opportunity to investigate those claiming the right to cast their ballot in elections in Northern Ireland. I welcome that.
I would be happy if the date of 15 September applied to Great Britain as well as to Northern Ireland. A date of 10 October creates a huge problem on this side of the Irish sea, as students return to university and are registered both at home and at university. A 15 September date would probably mean that 90 per cent. of those students would be at home and registered at home. A whole series of problems would then disappear overnight. I have made that point a number of times to the Home Office, but so far—

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been a continuous registration process for a number of years, which allows people to enter their names on the register after 15 September. I assume that that still applies. Does that materially affect the hon. Gentleman's argument?

Mr. Ross: That procedure merely helps those who have been left off the register, perhaps because they did not get the household form. Someone who moves from one district to another cannot be registered in the new district. People are always registered at the address they were at on 15 September. 1 have a nagging worry about the continuous registration process, but it is the law and I suppose that I can live with it.
The hon. Gentleman and his party will know from personal experience that not many people avail themselves of the process, because not that many people

check the register to see whether they are registered. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they have been checking over the past fortnight. A number of my constituents have telephoned me to complain bitterly that they cannot get through to the chief electoral officer, who is handling the postal ballots rather than having them handled at local level. That is wrong. The people at local level are perfectly capable of handling applications for postal or proxy votes.
My constituents have tried to ring Belfast, but the place is snowed under. Indeed, it has been snowed under for days. There is no point in the chief electoral officer saying, "We have taken X number of phone calls." He does not know how many hundreds of other people have tried to get through, without success, because the lines have been jammed solid. It would have been a much easier process if it had been done at local level. However, that matter does not arise under the amendment; I am merely answering the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
Even with the continuous registration system, people have to submit their applications at least two months before the date of an election. I cannot remember the exact time scale, but it is quite long. The number of people who are able to vote, who otherwise would not have been able to do so, is tiny as a proportion of the whole. Whenever an election is due, there is a huge rush of people who suddenly discover that they are not on the register, but they want to vote. They scream at the parties and at the electoral officer, but it is too late. Therefore, it is far easier to defend a date of 15 September. In Northern Ireland—as, I am sure, is the case in Great Britain—each year people have an opportunity to correct the register. It might make the parties and the electoral officer do something if there were obviously a number of empty houses from which cards had not been returned. That problem needs to be addressed.
I hope that we can be given a clear explanation of the reason for the inclusion of subsection (6)(a)and why the Secretary of State is being empowered to
make provision about the election or any matter relating to it.
We also want to know the position on deposits. I have suggested a figure of £500, but some people may argue for £750 and others for £1,000. I am fairly easy about this, but I want to know the Government's thinking.

Mr. Mallon: I shall deal with one issue touched on by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—the allocation and processing of proxy or postal votes by the chief electoral officer.
The chief electoral officer does not seem to have much faith in human nature. The problem with his approach is that it blocks not the people who are abusing the proxy or postal vote system but the genuine applicants. The hon. Member for East Londonderry outlined how one requests a postal vote from the chief electoral officer. The problem has existed for many years. The chief electoral officer is answerable to no one. Election after election, year after year, we have faced an absurd situation. The deputy electoral officers, who in my experience are men of great ability and integrity, have not been allowed to process this important part of the electoral system.

Mr. William Ross: I concur with everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying. At one time, the deputy


electoral officers handled such applications. Because they were closer to the ground, they did a much better job than is done now that the system is centralised. If the experience of the previous general election is anything to go by, centralisation has not been a startling success, to put it mildly.

Mr. Mallon: I agree. It is a matter of common sense, a virtue which not everyone in the chief electoral officer's offices shares. I know that there is great concern about the issue in the various offices. Who knows the local areas better than the local deputy electoral officers? Who knows a scam when they see one better than they? Who can recognise a fiddle better than those operating in the relevant area?
I would welcome a modicum of common sense being instilled in the way in which the chief electoral officer deals not only with his staff but with the population at large and the political parties. We could end up spending thousands of pounds in an effort to get people to exercise their right to vote in the referendum and the election that will follow, while the chief electoral officer's nonsensical approach could in effect disfranchise people making genuine applications.
I shall conclude my remarks by relating an anecdote. Some years ago, when the postal votes were being vetted by the chief electoral officer, the late Harold McCusker, who then represented Upper Bann, and I heard that the officer had turned down an application from a 104-year-old woman on the ground that the application did not specify physical disability. We both knew the lady concerned—she would have been voting for Mr. McCusker, so the application was of no benefit to me. We argued that, irrespective of how the form had been filled in, she should get a postal vote. However, that old lady was not allowed to vote because of the nonsensical system.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I shall attempt to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). The Bill refers to the Secretary of State's power to provide for an election by order. That order will be introduced soon and will make provision for matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised, including electoral fraud, a list of absent voters, payment to the returning officer, a candidate's right to send free mail, the secrecy of the ballot and deposits.
The specific provisions in subsection (6) are entirely standard and reflect practice in all electoral legislation. As the hon. Gentleman and others will know, in Northern Ireland an extensive exercise is carried out every year to establish the electoral register. It includes house-to-house canvassing and regular publicised hearings at various points throughout the year at which people who are not on the register can seek to be included on it. They are reasonable provisions and have been in force for some time. Of course when an election is called, a line has to be drawn. The chief electoral officer and his staff cannot be expected to deal with all the work surrounding an election and, at the same time, consider appeals from people who want to be included on the register at the last minute.
I take the points that the hon. Gentleman and others made about electoral fraud. It is particularly important for us to address it in Northern Ireland. As I said earlier,

the Select Committee and the committee of the forum have reported on it. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider various proposals in those reports, some of which might be included in the order, depending on their practicality. In respect of deposits, if hon. Members wish to write to me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with their views on what the level of the deposit should be, I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend takes their suggestions into account when she presents the order to the House later in the parliamentary year.

Mr. William Ross: Although the Minister did not answer all the points that I raised, in the light of what he has said and as it is standard procedure, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

VACANCIES

Mr. Mackinlay: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—

'(2) An order under subsection (1) above may—

(a) require a seat last filled by a member of a registered party to be filled by another member nominated by that party (without a by-election);
(b) provide for a by-election to be held;
(c) prescribe such other method of filling vacancies as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and different provision (including provision that a vacancy shall not be filled) may be made for different circumstances.

(3) In this section "registered party" means any party registered under any enactment providing for the registration of political parties.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in page 2, line 21, leave out from 'by' to end of line 23 and insert
'the appointment of a substitute chosen by the party to whom the previous occupant of that vacant seat belonged, or was elected as a representative of that party, and where the former representative was an independent the seat shall remain vacant until the following assembly elections.'.
No. 1, in page 2, line 21, leave out 'by-elections or'.

Mr. Mackinlay: Before I advance my arguments for adopting the amendment, which I consider to be superior to what is in the Bill, I should like to make one point that is germane to our detailed examination of legislation. I voted with some reluctance for the guillotine, so I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to explain why the Bill will not be considered by the House of Lords until Monday or Tuesday week. I find that quite breathtaking and worrying. We were told that there is a degree of urgency in our consideration of the legislation in Committee, so we need a good explanation on why it is not moving expeditiously to another place.
Having scuppered my chances of a job in the next reshuffle—I hope—let me explain why the structure of clause 3 is so important. We need to address the way in which vacancies in the assembly are filled, as that matter needs to be handled delicately.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) gave us a good illustration which referred to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). Had the hon. Member for Foyle been elected President of the Irish Republic, as was contemplated at one time, he would have had to vacate his seat in the European Parliament. There would have been a by-election, but it would have been impossible for the SDLP to replace him. Clearly, he would have been replaced by someone of the Unionist persuasion. That problem is writ large if by-elections to the new assembly are held under the proposed electoral system. Whichever tradition commands a majority in a particular constituency would be bound to win, regardless of whether the vacant seat had been held by the Alliance, Sinn Fein, the SDLP, or the DUP. In all probability, the official Unionists would win the seat.
As there will be multi-Member constituencies, I believe that that would be undemocratic. It could also knock the fragile balance of committee seats in the assembly and the distribution of portfolios or number of seats on the Executive; that would be a source of great frustration.
After the assembly has been elected—I shall not take all hon. Members with me on this point—there will, unhappily, be a time of fragility in which it has to build up its procedures and form an Executive. As it prepares to move in that incubation period from being a shadow body to a fully functioning assembly, a by-election could be wholly disruptive.
9 pm
I invite hon. Members to consider a scenario in which the Executive has been set up and—as is in the nature of politics—there are bad times. There could be extreme and, I hope, extraordinary terrorist activity, or some natural disaster, for example. Some people would exploit the opportunity offered by a by-election to create difficulties.
I use as an analogy the Westminster general election of February 1974, which destabilised, and contributed to the demise of, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, which at that stage had had only a few months' life. If the election had not occurred, the Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly might have had a longer run, and the problems that arose—the Ulster workers' strike and so on—might have been avoided. Lord Merlyn-Rees and others who were involved, including the late Brian Faulkner, said that the election came at a bad time, and I believe that by-elections to the New Northern Ireland Assembly could give rise to similarly great problems.
Unlike the Bill, amendment No. 2 would make it clear that there was a presumption that, when a vacancy arose, it would be filled by a member of the political party that previously held the seat. That would help the Secretary of State by removing any ambiguity, so that those people who wanted the political opportunity to fight a by-election for their own selfish reasons would not have any grounds for complaint against her or any future Secretary of State.
The amendment is similar to one tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), in that it would cover cases in which independents, who might have no natural successor, lost their seat or their seat was declared void. It would then allow the Secretary of State—in the nature of things, this would be rare—to call a by-election or to hold the seat vacant.
I do not like the latter option, but, like the hon. Member for Belfast, South, I recognise that a vacancy could occur relating to a seat hitherto held by an independent and we must explore that possibility. The seat could also be held in abeyance until a Westminster general election or a Northern Ireland local government election, for example—those options should also be explored. However, the overwhelming majority of vacancies that will occur will relate to people who were elected on a party ticket—the provisions that deal with other circumstances are highly unlikely to be used.
In the past 24 hours, I have been referring to my library of Hansards—1 was also studying the Hansard reports of the 1973 Northern Ireland Assembly. They should be compulsory reading, as they buttress the argument—I say this in parenthesis—that Standing Orders should be handed down by the Secretary of State rather than formulated by the assembly. The former assembly wasted much time on that.
Tragically, on the eve of the first sitting of the Northern Ireland Assembly, a Unionist Member, Mr. McCarthy, was killed in a car crash and the by-election was never held because, as far as I can ascertain, it was such a short-lived assembly.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The seat, my own constituency of North Antrim, was filled; a DUP man won it.

Mr. Mackinlay: Indeed.
I do not want to press the amendment to a vote. There could be subsequent reshuffles, and I do not want to scupper anything! In the gap between now and the matter being considered in another place, there should be some reflection on this question, on the matter of the Presiding Officer and on one or two other matters. I cannot see why it should not be possible, by agreement—there is agreement—for amendments to be made in another place that could go through on the nod when they come back to the House.
There is a mood in the Chamber for tidying up this measure. It would help the Secretary of State to have an improved Act on the statute book.

Mr. Mallon: I have much sympathy with the amendment and I look forward to hearing the Minister's view on it, but it could run contrary to the whole reason for the proportional system, which is to create a proportional representation within a constituency in an election, and 1 am strongly in favour of that. A by-election under proportional representation becomes a majority vote election, especially in the Northern Irish context, and the amendment would defeat that purpose.
The amendment also runs contrary to the d'Hondt system in relation to appointments within the assembly. Under that system, if a Minister dies, becomes President of Ireland or is no longer a Minister for some other reason, the post returns to his party. The amendment would create a contradiction with that element of inclusivity.
The proportionality according to which appointments are originally made, be they in cabinets or committees or in the assembly itself, could be changed by the by-election process envisaged in the amendment. To take an extreme example, if a party was on the borderline of having enough of a mandate to have one of its members appointed a Minister under the d'Hondt system, and a


member of the party subsequently died or left, it might then have too few members for that ministerial post. Does the party lose its claim to the post because the element of proportionality has changed?
I know that that is an extreme case, that in normal practice it would not happen and that those who would push it to happen would be very churlish indeed. That points to the contradiction that exists. The problem as regards independence is obvious, but we have to remember that there is no such thing as independence in Northern Irish political life. Some people with strong opinions might label themselves as independents—during the forum elections one of the local newspapers carried a marvellous headline, calling on all independent candidates to unite so that they could present a united voice in the forum. I should have thought that it would have been much easier to join a political party and have done with it, but that points up the difficulties.
Like the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) who moved the amendment, I do not think that it should be pressed to a vote, but I would be interested to find out what the Minister has to say and to hear the reaction to it. He knows that on 2 February the matter was discussed at length in the talks. In fairness, the minute tells us that the discussion was inconclusive.

Mr. Robert McCartney: With his experience as a member of the Senate of the Dail Eireann, can the hon. Gentleman assist us about the position there when there is a by-election, as happened recently in a seat in north Dublin and another in Limerick? The proportional representation system of single transferable vote is, I understand, the same. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what happened on those occasions and whether a similar system to that suggested in the Bill is applicable there?

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman knows full well the answer to that question. In Dail Eireann there are by-elections. We are dealing with a different system. In Dail Eireann, members of the Government are appointed by the leader of the largest party, which forms the Government, so there is not the proportionality factor either in committees or ministerial positions and that is the essential difference. I take the point, as having a by-election looks more democratic, but, in essence, it runs counter to all the other arrangements.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that that is the essential difference. It is that in Dail Eireann, if the Government lose their majority they go to the country. Perhaps I am wrong, but, as I understand it, we are talking about a fixed-term body. That is the essential difference between the Dail and this House, and what is being proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Mallon: Again, the Government need not necessarily go to the country. One of the most successful Governments in the Republic of Ireland—that led by Sean Lemass—was a minority Government from the day they began until the day they ended, and lasted for the full term. That does not answer the hon. Gentleman's question, however.
The issue was discussed in the talks process and, according to the minutes, was inconclusive, but there is a substantive case for the Government to reconsider the

matter, measure it in accordance with the proportional representation system for election and with the d'Hondt system of appointment to committees and Cabinet positions. Having studied it, they might move, hopefully, towards the amendment.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I support the general thrust of the debate. We have considered the matter and recognise some of the issues. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) used the illustration of someone becoming President of Ireland, which, with proportionality, might result in a Sinn Fein candidate moving up. It could be the other way round and involve a Sinn Fein man becoming President of Ireland and an SDLP person going to the assembly.
The question to face is the principles and patterns that have been accepted for the assembly. It was in the light of proportionality that we tabled our amendment. We recognise that if we are to go down that road, there must be some consistency. It was said earlier that the Unionists would be most likely to win, which would be wonderful. The amendment shows that we are not seeking to hog any assembly. The reality is shown by a recent Omagh council by-election. The council swung because, following the death of a Unionist, a Sinn Fein councillor was elected. It could be said that that is democracy at work. In councils, the Dail Eireann or a Parliament such as this, it is possible to wheel and deal so that a party can retain its governmental role, assisted by others. However, in the assembly it is proportionality right through, and I believe that it is incumbent on the Government, especially in the week before the Bill goes to the other place, to think again and make some amendment.
The matter is important for another reason. The amendment would clear the position and leave no ambiguity. If it is left open for a vacancy to be filled by some method chosen by the Secretary of State, whoever that might be, there could be controversy about whether that person had acted judiciously or with bias. If the Bill is clear about how vacancies should be filled, there is no room for further argument.

Dr. Godman: Despite my respect and affection for my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I have some reservations about the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock offered no comparative evidence about where the system that he envisages operates. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh was asked about recent by-elections in the Republic, in Limerick and Dublin. As I said earlier, both were won by representatives of the Irish Labour party. I recall another by-election in Dublin where Mr. Joe Higgins almost pulled off a dramatic victory over the issue of water rates. What of the interests of the electors in such a system?
I readily acknowledge the need to take account of the special needs of Northern Ireland and the important question of proportionality. Nowhere are such considerations more evident than in the Knesset. The system there is a disaster, but it is still democratic. All I am saying is that electors in a constituency must have the right to voice their view at a by-election about the conduct of the previous Member, whether he is dead, in prison or whatever, and about the conduct of the party concerned.


Labour has suffered some remarkable reverses in Scotland. My Scottish friends on the Government Front Bench will recall the Govan by-election, which we lost.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): That is one.

Dr. Godman: There has been more than one; I am talking about our most recent defeat, when we lost to the SNP despite the massive majority Bruce Millan had enjoyed. I have listened carefully to the Minister, but we must give serious consideration to the interests of the electors.

Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend has challenged me to cite an example of such an arrangement. I am open to correction by my hon. Friend, but I have to remind him that we, in this place, in this parliamentary Session, have passed clauses in the European Parliamentary Elections Bill that mean that there will not be any by-elections. So he and I voted for precisely this formula. I assume that he voted for it—if not, he should not have a chance of a Cabinet job either. We all voted for it. That is something that we have taken on board in this parliamentary Session.
If I had done some research, I suppose that I could trot out half a dozen examples. The Australian Senate, which is elected, has a system—by convention admittedly—in which when a vacancy occurs the premier of the state from which the Senator comes nominates someone from the party that held the seat. Even if the premier is a member of the Country party, if the Senate seat was held by the Australian Labour party, he nominates an Australian Labour Senator, no doubt recommended by the leader of the party.
There are plenty of precedents, but the most important is that my hon. Friend and I voted for such arrangements—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is making an intervention.

Dr. Godman: It was an interesting intervention. I do not know where to start replying to it, Mr. Lord. My hon. Friend offered to give me half a dozen examples in an intervention that could hardly be called brief. He gave the Australian Senate as an example. That convention developed over a number of years, as my hon. Friend will acknowledge. It was not introduced in 1901.

Mr. Willis: What about the European Parliamentary Elections Bill?

Dr. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Willis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I am sorry for interrupting him from a sedentary position, but the most relevant point that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made was about the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. We would like the hon. Gentleman to deal with that example.

Dr. Godman: I cannot recall offhand, but I may well have voted for such a system in that Bill. A degree of

inconsistency does no one any harm and I have never had any aspirations to higher office. I have answered three of my hon. Friend's questions from his less than brief intervention. He gives us the Australian Senate, where convention was developed over many years. The European Parliament is an entirely different assembly. It has no legislative powers. It cannot be compared sensibly with what we are discussing this evening, which is, a Northern Ireland assembly that may prove to have some characteristics in common with our Scottish Parliament. I would not want to see the type of measure that my hon. Friend advocates introduced into the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. McGrady: My hon. Friend does not have to go outside Northern Ireland to find an example that supports the argument for replacement by party connotation. In local government in Northern Ireland, by agreement within the chamber, vacancies are not filled by proceeding to an election. People are co-opted by party designation. That happens in the vast majority of councils in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Godman: I do not regret getting up to speak, but I am losing friends by the minute here. I am not too happy with the local government example. I should like to see many more powers given to local government in Northern Ireland. I suspect that councillors might have a different view if they had the powers that local authorities in Scotland and elsewhere have.
To address the amendment directly, I have to say that, despite the remarkably fine characteristics of my democratic socialist Friend the Member for Thurrock, it does not address the concerns of the electorate during the lifetime of a Parliament. Despite the problems facing my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland on a daily basis—I am only an occasional visitor to the Six Counties—my view is that we must take account of the interests, aspirations and concerns of the electors. With sincere respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, I do not think that his amendment addresses the problem, which is the democratic rights of the electors themselves.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The amendment deals with one of the Bill's many provisions that demonstrate the degree to which the assembly is to be the puppet of the Secretary of State. Throughout this short piece of legislation, it is abundantly clear that the Secretary of State has the assembly on a choke chain: if it moves in one direction, she hauls it back; if it moves in the other, she hauls it back; if it goes too far forward, she hauls it back; if it does not move fast enough, she kicks it forward. The Secretary of State can refer to the assembly even those matters that are outside the scope of the assembly's authority.
The Secretary of State has the power to make provision for the elections and she effectively has the power to decide who comes in on the foot of any vacancy. There is no provision in the Bill that suggests that the Secretary of State is required to do the same thing in one case as in another. In one case, she might find it politic to hold a by-election—perhaps in that way one of her supporters might get elected. In another case, it might be preferable to allow the vacancy to be filled by a member of the same party as the person who is deceased or has retired. In yet another case, she might find some other method—it is


entirely up to her—of filling that vacancy. That is not remotely a democratic way of dealing with a vacancy, therefore, the amendment fails to address the problem.
Because of the electoral system, there are automatic difficulties and I can well understand the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). There is bound to be a feeling of injustice if a party manages to get the appropriate quota that allows it one seat out of six, but the person either dies or retires, a vacancy occurs and the party does not get its seat in that area, it is not represented and its voice is not heard.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I ought to intervene on the hon. Gentleman because I think that he has misunderstood the clause. Clause 3 refers to the Secretary of State, by order, laying down the method by which vacancies are to be filled. That would be a general order, which referred to the general principle of how vacancies are to be filled and not to individual vacancies as they occurred. His speech suggests that he is under the impression that the Secretary of State could pick and choose between methods—by-election on one occasion and substitution on another—but that is not the case. When I reply to this debate, I shall explain in more detail what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has in mind on that issue, but I should say now that the clause refers to vacancies in general and to general principles, not to individual cases.

Mr. Robinson: I quite understand that the provision is that the Secretary of State will make an order—but the Secretary of State could make another order. There is nothing in the Bill that suggests that the Secretary of State is not capable of making one order after another, or varying the conditions from one occasion to the next. If it were not so, why does she not put that up front right now? Let her put it on the face of the Bill. The obvious approach would be for her to tell us how a vacancy will be dealt with. I would far rather know right now what the method is to be, even if it was not the method I most preferred, because I would at least know that it would apply in all sets of circumstances.
I can understand the genuine concern that the proportionality in an area will no longer be intact after a vacancy occurs. In the Republic of Ireland, that is dealt with by recognising the fact that opinions can change in a constituency, and that, unless one allows a by-election, in effect one freezes one's electoral body. In this case, one would freeze not only the electoral body, but the form of government within that body. It could never change while the assembly existed. We should remember that the legislation has an indefinite lifespan: it could remain for ever and a day. With the Bill as it stands, Members of the Assembly will be elected without knowing how long their term of office will be; it is not stated.
I believe that it could cause many problems to freeze matters for all time in Northern Ireland by saying that any vacancy should be filled by a member of the party to which the ex-member belonged. Although I believe that the best way of dealing with the problem is by holding a by-election—inadequate though that may be—even if the Government did not go in that direction, I should much prefer that they stated in the Bill how we shall proceed if a vacancy arises.

Mr. William Ross: We have had an interesting little debate on this issue. My hon. Friends and I tabled amendment No. 11 partly because this issue is not new in Northern Ireland; it has been around since the proportional representation-single transferable vote system was introduced for council elections and for the Northern Ireland body. In some cases, considerable changes in council strengths were made as a result of one or two deaths in a district electoral area, or even in adjoining ones.
The problem has not been resolved. Although Ministers may be unaware of the fact, it is not the first time that I have drawn attention to the problem of by-elections and the replacement of persons who have died or retired under the PR-STV system.
The hon. Member for Inverclyde—

Dr. Godman: Greenock and Inverclyde.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said that, without holding a by-election, one did not address the concerns of the electorate between elections. However, the difficulty is that, between elections, it would be a first-past-the-post election—or rather, on the exhaustive vote system—whereas the general election, to whatever body, is conducted under the single transferable vote system. For a by-election to be fair, the five or six remaining Members must stand down, and the election must be held for the whole constituency.
People do not take kindly to that, either, but that is the only fair way to find out what the electorate of the area think between general elections. We have to say, "Sorry guys; someone's killed, someone's resigned. The whole body of representation in the constituency is wiped out, so you have to have an election."
Let us be clear in our minds about another thing. One does not know when some poor soul in a sensitive area in Northern Ireland will become a target for a killer. Given the passions that have flowed round that place for years, I sometimes wonder how people—perhaps the only representative of the political view that they hold—have managed to survive. The constant danger is that, sooner or later, someone with gunmen will get round to looking at the politics. I strongly believe that we need to consider that issue with great care.

Dr. Godman: Whatever system is chosen, loose ends will be left untied. There is no perfect system anywhere. I am simply saying that I believe that, in principle, whatever the system, vacancies should be filled by way of by-elections.

Mr. Ross: In general terms, I have no problem with that philosophy. I am saying only that it should be "fair do's" all round—that we should compare like with like, in the by-election as in the general election.

Mr. Mallon: I have a certain attachment to by-elections; had it not been for one, in rather unique circumstances, I should not be here. However, in the last forum election, in the constituency of Newry and Armagh, the Ulster Unionist party won one seat. That was a distortion, because the electoral system was a distorted


one, but it was still under proportional representation. Let us assume that—as, thankfully, did not happen—that person had become the President of the Republic of Ireland, which would have been very unlikely. It would have meant that the constituency of Newry and Armagh had no Unionist representative. In the event of a by-election, we would win the seat and the Ulster Unionist party would be totally disfranchised in that constituency.

Mr. Ross: It would be more accurate to say that the Ulster Unionist electorate rather than the Ulster Unionist party would be disfranchised. The Minister will understand by now that there are concerns about this issue that are not tied to this assembly alone. I believe that our problems in this area go beyond the assembly to the entire range of bodies elected by proportional representation. For that reason, I hope that the Government will take on board the points raised in this discussion, and perhaps return on Report or in another place with proposals that might meet with more general approval. I do not deny the arguments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who raised concerns that are different from those represented by other hon. Members who have participated in the discussion.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) appeared to argue that the Secretary of State could, by a series of orders, select a variety of means of filling vacancies. I understood the Minister to say that an order would be made stating the general principle upon which each consecutive vacancy would be dealt with thereafter. Is there any reason why the present Bill should not contain words to the effect that the Secretary of State will make an order setting out the consistent principle upon which all vacancies will be filled? That would preserve the Secretary of State's right to fill the vacancy according to a principle that would apply to each and every vacancy. It would also permit the Bill to pass, leaving the detail of the particular method to be selected later, and it would lay to rest fears that there may be a degree of unjust variety in the modes of filling possible vacancies.

Mr. Paul Murphy: This has been a very interesting discussion. It stems from the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who referred to the fact that this is unfinished business so far as the talks were concerned. I chaired the meeting when we dealt with the matter. We did not reach a conclusion, and because of that and because it is a particularly important issue—I acknowledge that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has raised it before—it is a concern.
There are strong feelings on both sides of the argument. The traditional way of filling parliamentary vacancies in this country is through by-elections. However, in the light of the nature of the electoral system in Northern Ireland and the system that already operates for European parliamentary elections in the Republic of Ireland—it will be introduced in this country as well—we know that we must consider the method of alternates by substitute in order to preserve proportionality.
The Government wish to consult on the matter. The Secretary of State will, by order—it will be a statutory instrument resulting from the Bill—put before the House

of Commons the general principles, to which the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) referred, of how we shall fill assembly vacancies. Those principles will be before us very soon. In the meantime, I urge hon. Members—as I urged them regarding the other matter—to write or talk to me or the Secretary of State about their concerns. Parliament will then have the opportunity to address the matter in the context of dealing with orders.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that to avoid all the confusion that might arise and to ensure that the balances and adequate distribution of positions are maintained, right from the beginning, the parties or the independents who are elected should make known the substitute to be appointed in the event of a vacancy arising?

Mr. Murphy: There are complications, even in a system of alternates. An alternate at the beginning of a Session of a Parliament or an assembly might, in the course of the Session, not want to serve any more. What happens then? There are practical difficulties.
There are practical difficulties in the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), with the reference to "party". That implies the definition of party. We would have to examine that further because of the complications surrounding those matters.
The debate has been a good one and all the points have been made. The debate that will accompany the order to be laid before the House will benefit from the arguments that we have heard this evening. I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments, as we shall deal with the matter in the not too distant future.

Mr. Mackinlay: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I hope that that meets the mood of the Committee. We still stand a sporting chance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

DISQUALIFICATION

Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move a manuscript amendment, No. 26, in page 2, line 27, at end insert—

'(1A) A person is disqualified for membership of the Assembly if he belongs to a party which—

(a) is attached to a proscribed organisation which is listed in Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, and which—

(i) has not declared, and is not presently honouring, a permanent and total cessation of violence; and
(ii) has not surrendered its illegal weaponry; and
(iii) has not dismantled its paramilitary structure, and

(b) has not made an unequivocal decision of its acceptance of the six principles contained in the Report of the International Commission on Decommissioning. which establish a commitment to—

(i)exclusively peaceful means; and
(ii) abide by the democratic process.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss manuscript amendment No. 29, in schedule, page 4, line 13, at end insert—

'3A. No person shall hold any office in the Assembly if he belongs to a party which—

(a) is attached to a proscribed organisation which is listed ion Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, and which—

(i) has not declared, and is not presently honouring, a permanent and total cessation of violence; and
(ii) has not surrendered its illegal weaponry; and
(iii) has not dismantled its paramilitary structure, and

(b) has not made an unequivocal declaration of its acceptance of the six principles contained in the Report of the International Commission on Decommissioning, which establish a commitment to—

(i) exclusively peaceful means; and
(ii) abide by the democratic process.'.

Mr. Robinson: I have often moved amendments, with little expectation that they would be accepted by the Government or supported by the House. On no occasion could I be more certain that an amendment would not succeed than on this one. The certainty comes from the fact, which seems to have been missed by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, that the agreement is a multi-party agreement, and a single party cannot change a multi-party agreement. That is the core of the agreement that has been reached.
The essential element of the agreement is that there is to be a buy-off of terrorists. The agreement was set up in order to buy the silence of the IRA's gunners. For that purpose, they were brought into the talks process, throwing aside the rules that were set up. The rules that decommissioning would be required disappeared. The rules that exclusively democratic and peaceful means must be adopted by the parties were tossed aside. The purpose was to engage the Provisional IRA in negotiations and to find out what price it would be willing to accept in return for the silence of its guns and bombs. No price that would entail the IRA being excluded from government would buy the silence of its guns and bombs.
The essential element of the assembly is membership for the Provisional IRA and other terrorist organisations at the very highest level, including Government. The Bill ensures places for Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness in the Government of Northern Ireland. Have hon. Members stopped for a moment to think how repulsive that is to the people of Northern Ireland?
I entered politics because a friend of mine was killed in a bomb explosion in the Northern Ireland Electricity headquarters. The person who was in charge of the Provisional IRA who sent the bombers out who killed my friend was Gerald Adams.
I am an alderman in the borough of Castlereagh, where a dozen people were butchered by the Provisional IRA. The man who sent out those responsible for the bombing was Gerald Adams. I could go through atrocity after atrocity in Northern Ireland while Gerald Adams was the commander of the Provisional IRA in Belfast. Now he climbs over the bodies of victims to get into the Government of Northern Ireland. He is supported, sadly, not only by the Government but by the Tory Opposition He is even supported by some Unionists.
9.45 pm
The people of Northern Ireland, who have suffered the terrorism of these past decades and who refused to give in, no matter what the IRA would do against them, now find that the Government and others are prepared to offer places in government to the Provisional IRA. Not only that, but the Government are prepared to open the gates of the prisons to allow murderers out on to the streets. Is not that a buy-off to the men of violence?
The amendment sets out clearly that there can be no place in government and in the assembly for those who do not accept exclusively peaceful and democratic means of change. The Provisional IRA has not called a permanent cessation of violence. It is still carrying out its punishment beatings, as they are called. It is still shooting and bombing. It is still killing in Northern Ireland. Although it may use the name of convenience of some other organisation, there is still the hand of the Provisional IRA and there is still its stockpile of weapons.
I challenge the Government. If there is not an agreement behind which there is a determination to buy off the Provisional IRA, let the Government accept the amendment. Show us that the Government do not want to give in to terrorists. Show us that only those who are exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means will get into the assembly and into government. If the Government fail to do that, it will be abundantly clear that they will have men of violence in the assembly and in government. Once they are in government, there is no provision that requires decommissioning to take place in order for those people to remain in government. They can hold on to their weapons and their Ministers can still be in government.
There is even no requirement that the organisation itself should stop its violence. It is the individual who has to be caught with the smoking gun in his hand before that person can be removed from government. If there was any whiff of democracy in this system, it would not allow those who are associated with terrorists to be involved in the government of Northern Ireland or in an assembly for Northern Ireland.
I ask the Committee to support an amendment, if the Government are not prepared to do so, that is common sense. President Clinton tells us that we should accept what he describes as a great step forward, which is the progress of the agreement. Will he open the prison to allow the Oklahoma bomber to get out? Will he find a place in his Administration for him? He would not even dream of it. However, he expects us to do it in the context of Northern Ireland. That is the nonsensical nature of the proposal. It is proposed that those who have carried out acts as atrocious and heinous as any in the whole of this creation should be given places in government as of right. I oppose the proposal and so, I hope, will the Committee.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The amendment contains nothing that is different from the Mitchell principles, to which the men of violence said that they adhered. If we are now saying that we cannot make the Mitchell principles stick as regards those who join the assembly, what are we going to do? Are we to have someone in the assembly, or standing for membership and then getting elected to it, who is not prepared to accept the Mitchell principles? The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), said that he wanted the provision


strengthened. The amendment gives the Opposition an opportunity to put their feet in the Lobby. They say, "We agree with you and on another issue we shall vote with you." Now is the time to say, "You cannot get into the assembly unless you declare for the Mitchell principles and are abiding by them." That applies to people on both sides of the fence.
A wall on the road that I go down every day has the inscription, "Paisley wants you to give up your guns." That is how I am treated for telling loyalist people that they should give up their guns. I had to take part in talks with the representatives of people who had signed up to the Mitchell principles but were not abiding by them. The people of Northern Ireland want to know whether Parliament wants such men to continue to hold their guns and use them as a threat.
There will shortly be a band parade in Antrim town. Members of the Progressive Unionist party have gone to the band members and threatened them. They have been told that if they put their band on the road, they will never walk again. That threat has been issued by people who signed up to the Mitchell principles, and the only guilt of the band members is that they want to say no to the agreement. In a referendum, voters are entitled to say no. People may try to persuade them to say yes, and that is their business. If I want to persuade people to say no, that is my business. It is quite wrong to threaten people.
We have visits from members of the security forces that the Minister controls. They come to our houses and tell us, "There is a terrible threat on your life. You will have to mind yourself." Day after day, people in public office are being warned that they might be attacked. How can the people who make such threats be allowed to stand for the assembly and take part in it? There is an amendment about their taking office, but we must first deal with membership: that is all we ask. The Tory party should be honest about its policy.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I support the amendment. It is said that a week is a long time in politics. I think that paragraph 10—I speak from memory—of the Downing street declaration was the origin of much of the process that we are debating. It declared specifically that only those who had permanently eschewed violence as a means of obtaining political objectives should be permitted into dialogue with democratic parties and with the two Governments.
There was some debate about exactly what that meant, and the day after the Downing street declaration, the then Foreign Secretary of the Republic, Mr. Spring, said in Dail Eireann that it meant that there had to be a permanent cessation of violence and the giving up of arms. He specifically stated that Sinn Fein-IRA would not be permitted to enter the democratic process, look around to see what it had to offer, and then, if it did not meet their requirements, go back to what is described as doing what they do best.
Mr. John Bruton, then leader of the main opposition party Fine Gael and subsequently Taoiseach in what was described as the rainbow coalition, made a submission on behalf of his party in which he said that the effect of the Downing street declaration was that arms had to be given up now. "Now" is a very short word: it means immediately, at once, forthwith, without delay.
The British Government stated clearly that there had to be a permanent cessation of violence. Three months after the start of the first ceasefire of 31 August 1994, they assumed it to be permanent. The Irish Government were much more optimistic. Albert Reynolds, the then Taoiseach, said that there was no doubt that that ceasefire was permanent. Indeed, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) berated a television interviewer for having the temerity to suggest that "complete" was not synonymous with "permanent", and that violence could start up all over again after a complete ceasefire.
On 29 August 1995, after reports of a meeting in the west of Ireland attended by the hon. Member for Foyle and representatives of Sinn Fein and the Irish Government, during which it was proposed that there should be no requirement to hand over any amount of arms, the British Government responded by declaring that to admit Sinn Fein into democratic discourse would be undemocratic and unconstitutional.
Paragraph 34 of the Mitchell report produced in January 1996 stated that Sinn Fein and other paramilitaries were required merely to consider the decommissioning of arms in tandem with political progress. The Conservative Government resiled from every position that they had taken on decommissioning, and the present Administration rapidly followed suit. When the talks commenced, the air was alive with declarations and similes about twin tracks, parallel tracks and trains starting at the same time. There were references to decommissioning occurring at the same time as the political talks progressed.
When it was suggested in the House that Sinn Fein would be admitted to the talks, I pointed out that, once in the talks, it would say, "We are a political party with an electoral mandate. We are not Provisional IRA, we have no arms or weapons, and we have nothing to decommission." I argued that Sinn Fein would go from the beginning to the end of the negotiations and obtain the best agreement it could get, without a single ounce of Semtex or a single revolver or other weapon being handed over. One did not need to be a clairvoyant to make such a prophecy, and that is what happened.
During the negotiations, the real issue was pushed aside. The participants were fobbed off with proposals for highly expensive commissions staffed by expert people who, in due course, would do wonderful things about the administration of decommissioning. It was all a complete farce. The dogs in the street knew that there was not the slightest prospect of a single weapon or a single explosive ever being handed over until Sinn Fein's ultimate objectives were achieved.
What do we have under this agreement? It provides that Sinn Fein members can be elected under this proposed assembly, can hold Executive office on the basis of proportionality and can front a paramilitary grouping that has been responsible for the deaths of more than 2,000 people. That is the reality.
10 pm
It is suggested that Sinn Fein has come in like a spy from the cold and embraced the principles of democracy, much as members of the Weimar Republic and General


Schleicher thought in 1933 that they could persuade fascists to assume the mantle of democracy. That is exactly what is happening here.

Mr. Charles Clarke: That is a stupid argument.

Mr. McCartney: There may be remarks that what I am saying is stupid from the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. McCartney: I am sorry. I do not respond to insult from a sedentary position.
That assumption is not made by me. Every Minister in the Conservative Government—from the then Prime Minister downwards—who had anything whatever to do with the alleged peace process that the Conservative Administration sponsored, have said repeatedly that the connection between Sinn Fein and the IRA is overwhelmingly strong and overwhelmingly positive. They have been described as two faces on the same coin, as two wings on the same bird. It has been established that almost everyone in a position of authority in Sinn Fein has served their terrorist apprenticeship within the ranks of Sinn Fein-IRA.

Mr. Stott: As someone who did not insult the hon. and learned Gentleman from a sedentary position, I am grateful to him for giving way. He is a democratically elected Member of the British Parliament and he makes his points on the Floor of the ancient House of Commons, which he has every right to do. I told him in a private conversation that I was disappointed with him. He is a formidable advocate and he makes his points clearly. Why did he not make all those points in the talks? Why did he absent himself from the talks and stand on the sidelines, instead of making the points that he makes now?

Mr. McCartney: If the point were a good one, it would have been well made. I was in the talks for 14 months. During that period, I can say with modesty that I probably had the best attendance record of any party leader. I certainly attended every plenary session; I think that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), despite our differences, will bear me out.

Mr. Mallon: I am not in a position to confirm in terms of statistics what the attendance record of anyone was, but I will confirm that, when the hon. and learned Gentleman was there, he did give his point of view at great length—at very great length—and with great ingenuity.

Mr. McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Hon. Members should dwell not on attendance records, but on the amendment before us.

Mr. McCartney: I take your point, Mr. Martin. I was responding to an intervention from the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), who suggested that I had not played any part in the talks.

Mr. White: rose—

Mr. McCartney: No, I want to continue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Let us hear the hon. Gentleman, then.

Mr. White: As I said on Monday, the history of Ulster is selective, and people remember history selectively.

I seem to recall that the last person that the hon. and learned Gentleman described as a fascist was the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. No hon. Member would describe another hon. Member as a fascist. I am determined that we will get back to the amendment. It would be nice to hear about the amendment.

Mr. McCartney: The agreement would permit those who have been directly involved in violence—who are still associated with paramilitary organisations that have retained their weaponry, which have never accepted the principle of consent and which have not endorsed the agreement—to be in power, in the Executive, on the basis of an electoral mandate.
If we all feel that Sinn Fein elected Members are worthy participants in the democratic process, would it be wrong to suggest that they be disqualified if they are attached to or represent a proscribed organisation that is listed in schedule 2 to the emergency provisions Act? Does that seem unreasonable to any democrat? Should we not expect those people to declare that they are honouring a permanent and total cessation of violence? After all, that is what is required by paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration. Are we going back on that declaration? Should they not surrender their illegal weaponry? That is another requirement of the Downing street declaration. Should they not make an unequivocal declaration of their acceptance of the six principles contained in the Mitchell report, to establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful means and to abide by the democratic process?
Could anyone in this House honestly say that a real democrat, who has eschewed violence and is not associated with or representing a paramilitary grouping with retained weaponry, would be averse to this amendment? That is what the debate is about. If hon. Members believe in democracy, if they believe that violence should not be rewarded, I urge them to support the amendment.

Mr. Mallon: I shall be brief, not because there is not much to be said about the amendment—there is—but because most of it has already been said. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who tabled it and those who have spoken in favour of it. It may come as a surprise to them that many of the rest of us feel the same way. Many of us are not happy with the situation.
When I look at some of the people in the talks process and realise what they have done, I find it difficult to maintain my equilibrium. However, politics is not about rectitude; solving problems is not about rectitude—it is about finding a way to tackle something that has lasted for almost 30 years, with almost 4,000 lives lost and many lives ruined.
The reality is that this House tried to tackle the situation in many ways. It tried internment without trial, which failed abysmally. It tried to tackle it with the heaviest saturation of Army and police personnel anywhere in the civilised world. That, too, failed. It tried using the prisons, but the hunger strikes are engraved in the memory of everyone in my community. That did not work, either.
It is not a matter of rectitude and how one feels, but of how we can silence the guns and turn rampant terrorism in another direction. The proposals may succeed, and the


poachers may become gamekeepers—it has happened elsewhere in the world and in this jurisdiction throughout history, and it is nothing new that it should. Let us put it to the test.
The amendments are aimed not at my party or at the Government but at the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and the leadership of the main Opposition party. They should not be unnerved. Yes, everyone shares the feelings that have been expressed. Yes, people realise the difficulty that many on the Unionist Benches and our Benches would have—the feelings of revulsion and dislike. But what is more important—our own feelings, and a confirmation of our political views, or the well-being of the vast majority of the people living in the north of Ireland?
What we have to consider is not our personal likes or dislikes but how best we can deal with the violence and ensure that, if it is not eliminated, it is at least greatly reduced. It is not a terribly idealistic but a reasonable political assessment that those who have responsibility should try to save lives and create a new future.
We shall all have to bite our lips, and none more so than the members of our party. When we see some of the television interviews, listen to the pontification and recognise the sham, we shall have to bite our lips, because it is more important that we create a context in which violence might end for ever.

Mr. Grieve: It appeared that the hon. Gentleman was belittling rectitude—wrongly. Surely the rectitude that unites him and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) is that which led them to eschew violence at a time when people were killing each other.
I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, but does he accept that the difficulty for those who eschewed violence, despite the provocation of those who were perpetrating it, is that the inclusiveness of the proposals that will be put before the House, although not properly in the Bill, will require the inclusion of men who have so far not shown their full credentials in giving up violence? That is the fear which animates the amendments.

Mr. Mallon: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I am not sure how to reply, as I come from that stock. I come from a tradition and a family who had to bury guns. I do not know where they buried them. In Ireland, that tradition goes back a very long time. This year we are celebrating the bicentenary of 1798. The real history of the past 25 years will resemble that of 1798. It will become distorted and almost patched up.
People from our tradition know in their hearts that the IRA will never surrender its illegal weapons. The amendment has more to do with politics across the Floor of the House than with solving the problems of decommissioning, but I do not question the motives or the rectitude of those who support it.
Let me refer to the last speech in the House on the issue by Sir Patrick Mayhew, now Lord Mayhew. I cannot quote the exact column or date, but it is ingrained in my memory. He said that decommissioning will take place on a voluntary basis or not at all. That is the reality.
I want every possible pressure to be put on those who hold arms to make sure that decommissioning takes place. I want both Governments to use all their skill to achieve that. I do not expect them to send letters to my party or any other party, because I know that they can work in different ways, but I expect both Governments to weigh up the safety and the greater good of people living in the north of Ireland and the prospect for the future in terms of the creation of lasting peace—although that is a long way off. That is what we expect, and I believe that it will be achieved by the agreement.
It would be absolutely wrong to have another Washington 3, as it took two years for the then Government to move away from it. When an absolute decision is taken, it becomes difficult. It would be dangerous tactically and politically for a Government, a main Opposition party or any other party to be pushed into a position in which preconditions are created post-agreement. If it happened, it is easy to guess who would gain.
If the agreement is adopted, Sinn Fein will get its mandate in the election. Its representatives will arrive at the gates of whatever building it will be—hon. Members know where I do not want it to be, although the Minister certainly does—with the cameras of the world upon them. [Interruption.] I note that other people recently had trouble getting in. If Sinn Fein representatives arrive with a mandate and with the cameras of the world upon them and are not allowed to take their seats, who will win?
If Sinn Fein gets in with sufficient numbers under the system agreed by all the parties, in the House and in the talks, but is not allowed to take its places in the Administration, who will win? What will happen every day on the floor of the assembly? What will happen to public perception? There is an old saying about people outside the tent, which I shall not repeat in this august company.
I want those who hijacked and debased the republicanism that I hold—who put it in the gutter through violence—to be tested on the only anvil that will test them: their participation in the normal democratic process. I want them tested not only on the television and in the media, but where it counts—at every level in government, in the assembly and in committees. When they are tested there, decommissioning will begin in a way that could never be achieved through the amendment.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He states, by implication, that he believes that the Prime Minister's letter of assurance to the leader of the Ulster Unionist party has no value, and that, once Sinn Fein is admitted, it will never be expelled for failing to commence and carry through a process of decommissioning.

Mr. Mallon: I did not receive a letter from the Prime Minister, and, to be honest, I am not greatly impressed by letters from Prime Ministers—not that I have much experience of them. Moreover, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) does not show me the letters that he receives from Prime Ministers.
Like Sir Patrick Mayhew, I believe that decommissioning will happen, and that it will happen voluntarily or not at all. It will happen not through exclusion, but through inclusion. It will come about as a result of the political process at every level working on those involved and on the entire community.
We must face the fact that the community we represent is unique—it has suffered very deeply. It will arrive at a point at which it will not tolerate the holding of arms, not through exclusivity or because people are made into martyrs, but through the proper working of the political process.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not seen the letter that was sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Would he mind if I read it to him, so that he could give his view? It said:
Dear David"—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I would certainly object to the hon. Gentleman reading the letter.

Mr. Mallon: I shall consult the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) after the debate, and read the letter then. I shall not be surprised if I do not totally understand it, but I shall be surprised if the hon. Gentleman does. I shall be very surprised if the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who might understand it, can explain it to those who do not, because I can imagine the way in which it is drafted. I do not say that in a pejorative sense.
I say about the agreement in its totality: let us tell it as it is, not put a spin on it and sell it as a great Unionist or nationalist victory, because it is no such thing. Let us not sell it as a means of getting decommissioning before the assembly is set up, because that will not happen.
There is something wider, deeper and more fundamental at stake: something that takes us right down into the next century. Anyone with a feel for Irish history—Unionist or nationalist—knows that the terms of the amendment would never solve the problem. I ask hon. Members to repeat to the Government and to the Opposition: do not be conned or forced into another Washington 3, because that could undo all the work that has been done, without getting anywhere near solving the problem of decommissioning.

Mr. Beggs: Is the hon. Gentleman confirming by his observations that all the references to decommissioning and the Mitchell principles, which gave hope to all the wishful thinkers who are being induced to support the agreement, were a con to bring us to this stage, and that there was never really any intention to insist on decommissioning?

Mr. Mallon: I cannot speak for Senator Mitchell or for the people in the international commission. I give my own view, which is that decommissioning will not be achieved through an approach such as that embodied in the amendment. I believe that it will happen when there are certain convergences of different factors.
I am talking not about a united Ireland, but about a time long before that happens. I hope that I am right in prejudging that it will happen. The convergence of certain factors and sets of circumstances can lead to decommissioning, but any other approach will prevent it. Not only will the argument be lost; the gains that could come out of the agreement will be lost with it.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) uncharacteristically and, I trust,

inadvertently, slightly misled the House. I want to put the record straight and to reconfirm what the Prime Minister said at Question Time and what I said on Second Reading.
We have asked the Minister to consider the fact that when the major constitutional Bill to set up the assembly—as opposed to the current Bill, which provides for the shadow assembly and the elections—comes before the House, we will want a clause that says that no Members of the Assembly can be appointed Ministers if the paramilitaries that they are associated with have not substantially decommissioned or have resorted to violence in any shape or form.
That is very different from what is in the amendment. I want to put the record absolutely straight so there is no possible misunderstanding.

Mr. Thompson: I support the amendment. As far as I can detect from what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, he agrees with the amendment in principle—indeed, he might agree with it in substance—but, because he feels that it would not be carried out in practice, he will not support it. If one believes something in principle, one should carry it out. If the SDLP uses that type of reasoning and argument, it will find that another party will swallow it up because it will tell the electorate that it is the party that gets results. Members of the SDLP should be careful in going down that road.
10.30 pm
I, too, am sceptical about whether the Government will accept the amendment. They may talk piously of giving up arms, decommissioning and all the rest, but, as far as I can discover, they cannot accept the amendment because it would mean that Sinn Fein would not get into the assembly and that is the deal that has been made to get Sinn Fein in. All the high-falutin principle and the rest about decommissioning and using peaceful means is merely rhetoric and means nothing.
Surely we have learnt that of the six Mitchell principles, which were followed more in the breach than in their observance. Even while those who had accepted the principles were in the talks, the organisations that they were associated with were carrying out beatings and murders. Only when they were caught were the representatives excluded. The idea that the Mitchell principles—even though they had been signed up to—were in any way effective is nonsense.
The hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who spoke for the Opposition, does not, as far as I can see, yet understand the nature of the new assembly. While the Bill deals with the assembly in its first stage, the conditions and rules will also apply when it becomes active. The idea that we will have a new constitutional Bill that will change everything that we have here is not real. It will not then be possible to table and make amendments on decommissioning, so this amendment is right and proper.
Surely those who enter the democratic system must eschew violence. They must forget about it, give it up and agree to abide only by democratic means. If they are not prepared to agree to that obligation, they should not be allowed to enter the assembly. I support the amendment.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: The amendment is entirely consistent with the position that the Conservative


Government adopted. The Downing street declaration, which launched the process, was an urge for inclusive dialogue, but it was conditional on two points: first, the acceptance of the principle of consent and, secondly, an unequivocal commitment to exclusively peaceful means—the renunciation of violence. Over the past five years, that position was somewhat re-presented through the Mitchell paper and the Mitchell principles but the Conservative Government remained committed to decommissioning in parallel with the dialogue. That has not materialised. The position that we defended in government is consistent with the amendment. The Bill could allow participation in the assembly at executive level of people who have not unequivocally rejected violence.

Mr. Paul Murphy: This has been an interesting debate. No hon. Member supports violence or disagrees that the Mitchell principles, which lay at the base of the talks that have taken place during the past two years, are the proper foundation for a democratic society in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, but there has been little reference, except by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), to why we are here this evening. We are here because of the agreement.
The Bill is based on an agreement. The agreement was made on Good Friday, but it had been in preparation for many months—indeed, years. Of course it is important that decommissioning is an indispensable part of the process. It would be a travesty if there were a return to violence and those responsible for it were Ministers in an administration. Everyone accepts that, but how do we ensure that those matters are addressed by the assembly? Today, we are dealing with the assembly, how it will discipline itself, and how its Ministers, if they went back to violence, would be dealt with.
Page 10 of the agreement deals with the pledge of office. For example, Ministers would have to pledge their
commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
Page 7 states:
An individual may be removed from office following a decision of the Assembly taken on a cross-community basis, if (s)he loses the confidence of the Assembly".

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Minister agree that there is nothing in the agreement that refers to parties? It refers only to individual Ministers. The undertakings and pledges are personal. As the hon. Member for Derry said—[Laughter.] As Gilbert and Sullivan said, it is innocent merriment. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, nothing in the agreement requires anything other than an individual to give the pledge or be removed. Unless a Minister has been apprehended, or involved in some act of violence, or has personally commissioned or authorised some act of violence, he cannot be removed. The Minister agreed that the talks would be parallel with decommissioning and that when agreement was achieved there would be some practical demonstration of the commencement of decommissioning. That has not occurred.

Mr. Murphy: Yes, and my experience of politicians in Northern Ireland tells me that when the assembly is set

up and when the code of conduct is debated during the months of preparation for when the assembly takes over the functions of the Northern Ireland Departments, there will be much debate in that chamber about the nature of the pledge of office, the code of conduct that Ministers must sign, and the points that the hon. and learned Gentleman has just made. For that matter, during the past few months—once here in London and once in Dublin—individuals and parties were expelled from the talks on the basis of what occurred.
I repeat that the agreement that was reached by the Governments and the parties in the talks refers to the issues that have been raised in the debate today. Of course it does; they are important matters. If the assembly is to mean anything, it must have control over how it conducts itself when it takes over the full functions that it is entitled to take over under the agreement and under the major constitutional Bill that we shall consider later this spring and in the summer.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went into some detail this afternoon in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition. For example, he has said that if during the first six months of the shadow assembly or the assembly the provisions have been shown to be ineffective, the Government will support changes to those provisions to enable them to be made properly effective. I am happy to repeat that commitment tonight.
It seems to me that that is more than straightforward and satisfactory. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that we will support such changes, but, at the end of the day, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh said, the establishment of trust and confidence among parties in the assembly after the election is the only way in which peace will come to Northern Ireland and political stability can be achieved. There is no other way, and we have to ensure that it is within the assembly that the changes occur. However, we will watch it with great interest as the weeks go by.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister has just repeated yet again the very careful language in the letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), which says that the Government will support changes to the provisions. Supporting changes is not making changes to the provisions. The support will not be effective because all the other parties involved in the agreement will have to go along with the change, and they will not.

Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was talking about reshuffles earlier. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to disagree with the Prime Minister this evening. The issue is pretty clear. With your permission, Mr. Martin, I shall read the hon. Gentleman a passage from the agreement. The assembly that we are setting up tonight in shadow form and the later assembly that will be established in the major Bill later
will meet first for the purpose of organisation, without legislative or executive powers, to resolve its standing orders … In this transitional period, those members of the Assembly serving as shadow Ministers shall affirm their commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means and the opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose; to work in good faith to bring the new arrangements into being; and to observe the spirit of the Pledge of Office applying to appointed Ministers.



That applies to shadow Ministers and Ministers when they take office. It cannot be clearer than that.

Mr. Thompson: Why will the Government not say that they will make rather than support changes? Does that not confirm our view that in this agreement the British Government have conceded to a large extent their absolute sovereignty over that part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Murphy: In the agreement that has been forged and the debate this evening, it is not a question of the British, Irish or any other Government imposing anything on the people of Northern Ireland. The purpose of the agreement is in the nature of the word—it is an agreement made between Governments and parties. That is why we are discussing these matters. Obviously, we have a concern, because we are the Government in Northern Ireland, but the whole purpose of tonight is to ensure that the government of Northern Ireland is in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland. I have confidence that they will be able to manage the process.

Mr. Peter Robinson: This has been a useful debate. It has been illuminating in many ways. The Minister has shot himself in the foot—indeed, with his most recent remarks, he has shot himself in the kneecap.
The Minister made two vital errors. The first was to say that the expulsion of the UDP and Sinn Fein from the talks process compares with what would happen under the agreement. The forum legislationx2014;the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996—makes it abundantly clear that it is the parties that have to keep the Mitchell principles and that if they do not do that, the members of the party are to be put out. That provision tied the behaviour of the organisation itself and those with whom it associated, but on this occasion the parties and their organisations are not included; only the individual is tied. That is the smoking-gun scenario: a Minister must be caught with a smoking gun in his hand to be put out of the Government or out of the assembly. The condition applies not to the party but only to the individual. There is no requirement to decommission; nor is there a requirement for the party to be in ceasefire mode. That is the reality and it was the Minister's first error.
10.45 pm
The second error was to say that this is an agreement and therefore that it is not up to the Minister to give the assurances that have been asked for. That is precisely our point: there are little pieces of paper floating around with the Prime Minister's signature on them, but although the Prime Minister is a mighty man in the House of Commons, he is only one party to a multi-party agreement and is therefore not capable of changing the agreement unilaterally—he simply cannot do it. Even if there were some meaning to the piece of paper—there is not—it can be read in at least three ways. Even if there were some meaning to it, it simply would not affect the agreement.
As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, he never got a copy of the letter, so he is not bound by it; nor are any of the other parties, because they have not even seen it. They did not need to see it, because it does not affect the agreement that was reached. On 22 May, people will not be asked to say yes to the agreement plus a couple of letters from the Prime

Minister and an assurance from the Minister who is on the Front Bench tonight. They are being asked to say yes or no to this agreement alone. Those are the two vital issues with which Minister has helped us this evening.
I cannot understand the position of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). He says that the Conservative position differs greatly from that expressed in the amendments. I do not know whether he has read amendment No. 29, which seems to me to be identical to the Conservatives' position. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who obviously has read amendment No. 29, recognises that it is precisely what the hon. Member for Bracknell was asking for earlier: conditions have to apply before anybody from the assembly will be entitled to be in government.
I would not for one minute question the desire of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh for full decommissioning—he has said nothing that is inconsistent with that desire—but I hope that he notices the counsel of despair that has brought him to the position he takes. He says that the Government have tried security measures, that they have tried punishment, that they have tried this and that they have tried that and that, because none has worked, we have to try another way, which is to reward terrorists. Because we have been unable to deal with terrorism using security measures or by imprisoning terrorists, we must allow them entry into government and open the prisons—all those rewards must be given to buy them over.
If there were any sense in that proposal, it could only be on the basis that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said—that there had been a sea change in attitude on the terrorists' part; that they had been prepared to renounce violence permanently; that they had been prepared to commit themselves exclusively to peaceful and democratic means; and that they had been prepared to make a new start. In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman might have at least an academic argument, but the terrorists have done none of those things.
Let us consider what has happened on decommissioning. The Conservative Government said that for the IRA to be involved in talks it must decommission. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, that requirement was watered down at Washington 3. It was then said that the IRA had to make a start on decommissioning to show that it was on board—that it was serious about the proposal.
That requirement was wiped away. An international commission was set up. It said, "Some people want decommissioning at the start, but it will not happen. Others want it at the end. The only reasonable balance is to have some decommissioning during the talks process." On that basis, the Ulster Unionist party was prepared to sit down at the negotiating table.
It did not happen. Not one gun, not one ounce of Semtex, not one bullet, and not one detonator was decommissioned throughout the process, although it had been set up on the strict understanding that parallel decommissioning would take place—the international commission had set that condition—and now the IRA will get into government without decommissioning. We are told that voluntary decommissioning may take place, but there is no requirement for it to take place. Members of the IRA walk through a talks process without handing


over any guns; they walk into Government without handing over any guns; and there is no requirement for decommissioning to occur.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I agree with him. A major part of the Mitchell principles, which were launched with a fanfare of trumpets, was decommissioning. Why, in the hon. Gentleman's opinion, has decommissioning been placed on the back burner when constructive talks leading to meaningful progress can be implemented and carried forward successfully only if terrorists of all political persuasions do not continue to be in possession of huge quantities of explosive, bullets and weapons? My question is, why have Her Majesty's Opposition and the Government not insisted on decommissioning?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long.

Mr. Robinson: I believe that the answer is simple. Decommissioning has been put on the back burner because the Government and the Opposition know that the terrorists will not give up their guns. Why do terrorists not give up their guns? Because they want to leave open the option that, if things do not go precisely as they have choreographed them, they will use those guns again.
There is a second reason why guns remain in terrorists' possession. The threat that brought the Government to their knees and caused them to sign this sordid agreement still hangs above their head. Those are the reasons that the terrorists hold on to their guns. That is why the Government were faced with that adamant refusal to hand them over and caved in to the terrorists.
It is a sad reality that the Government have been prepared to allow Sinn Fein through the process without making one concession.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he answer this single question? What does he believe is more important: that the paramilitary groups decommission their weapons or that peace as we know it now continues? What is more important to him?

Mr. Robinson: I do not believe that there will ever be peace while the terrorists hold on to their weapons. That is not an option. The terrorists are holding on to their weapons and are using them even now. When they do not want to be seen to be using them, they give them to someone else who pulls the trigger for them. That is the reality of the situation.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh should not ask people to choose between two evils. [Interruption.] I think that holding on to guns is pretty evil—perhaps some of you do not think so. When you are prepared to put terrorists in the Government of Northern Ireland and when you are prepared to open prisons and you think that it is peace—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) knows the rules of the House: he should not use the word you.

Mr. Robinson: I apologise, Mr. Martin. I do not wish to associate you with any of the suggestions that I am

making to Labour Members. They describe what they have bought into as a peace process, but they will not get peace—it does not come by way of a peace process. No peace will result from this agreement. The IRA is pocketing the concessions and, as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness made clear at the weekend, this phase is over and a new phase begins. The IRA's goal is the same: it does not intend to change its methods. It will return to doing what Francie Molloy described as what it does best—and we all know exactly what that happens to be.
I see no peace in this peace process. I see plenty of process, and I know where that leads: to a united Ireland.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 174.

Division No. 253]
[10.56 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Forsythe, Clifford
Winterton, Mrs Ann(Congleton)


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas/(Macclesfield)


McCartney, Robert (N Down)



Paisley, Rev Ian
Teller for the Ayes:



Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Mr. William Thompson and


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Mr. Peter Robinson.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Dawson, Hilton


Alexander, Douglas
Dismore, Andrew


Allan, Richard
Doran, Frank


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dowd, Jim


Baker, Norman
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Eagle, Maria (L'Pool Garston)


Barnes, Harry
Edwards, Huw


Barron, Kevin
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Bayley, Hugh
Gapes, Mike


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
George, Andrew(St Ives)


Begg, Miss Anne
Gibson, Dr Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gilory, Mrs Linda


Bennett, Andrew F
Godman, Dr Norman A


Berry, Roger
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blackman, Liz
Gorrie, Donald


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Grant, Bernie


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Grogan, John


Browne, Desmond
Gunnell, John


Burnett, John
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Byers, Stephen
Hanson, David


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Harvey, Nick


Canavan, Dennis
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cann, Jamie
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Casale, Roger
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Caton, Martin
Hepburn, Stephen


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Heppell, John


Chidgey, David
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hinchliffe, David


Clapham, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Clelland, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Colman, Tony
Hutton, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Iddon, Dr Brain


Cooper, Yvette
Ingram, Adam


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cotter, Brian
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cranston, Ross
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Crausby, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cummings, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)






Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Laxton, Bob
Quinn, Lawrie


Lepper, David
Raynsford, Nick


Levitt, Tom
Rendel, David


Linton, Martin
Rooney, Terry


Livsey, Richard
Rowlands, Ted


Llwyd, Elfyn
Roy, Frank


McAllion, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Salter, Martin


McDonagh, Siobhain
Savidge, Malcolm


McFall, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McGrady, Eddie
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Soley, Clive


Mackinlay, Andrew
Southworth, Ms Helen


McNulty, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McWilliam, John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mallon, Seamus
Stott, Roger


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Maxton, John
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Meale, Alan
(Dewsbury)


Merron, Gillian
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moore, Michael
Timms, Stephen


Moran, Ms Margaret
Touhig, Don


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Trickett, Jon


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Mudie, George
Vaz, Keith


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Watts, David


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
White Brain


Norris, Dan
Whitehead, Dr Alan w(E Carmarthen)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Willis Phil


Olner, Bill
Wills, Michael


Palmer, Dr Nick
Woolas, Phil


Pickthall, Colin
Worthington, Tony


Pike, Peter L
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Plaskitt, James



Pond, Chris
Teller for the Noes:


Pope, Greg
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Janet Anderson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, leave out lines 35 and 36.
The amendment would simply remove the two lines of clause 4(3)(b) which state:
that he is a member of the Seanad Eireann (Senate of the Republic of Ireland).
Any person who sits in a legislature owes it a duty of service and loyalty, and I do not know how one can sit in the legislatures of two different nations, both of which claim the same piece of territory, and say that one owes loyalty to both. Therefore, the amendment is perfectly sensible and reasonable.
Perhaps the Government's policy is to cede authority over parts of the United Kingdom. If so, the Bill as printed is perfectly in keeping with that view. It is not my view, and I hope that the Government will show that they are serving Her Majesty properly by protecting the realm and all parts of it. I do not think that any anyone in this Parliament or in the New Northern Ireland Assembly, presumably with loyalty to the existence of Northern Ireland, can sit in another legislature that claims to remove part of the United Kingdom from the United Kingdom.

We cannot serve two masters: we must serve one or the other. I have great pleasure in recommending the amendment.

Mr. Mallon: As I said earlier, I have more than a passing interest in the change of legislation. In 1982, I was a member of Seanad Eireann and, for my sins, I was disqualified from the then Northern Ireland Assembly and had to pay substantial costs. It was the only time to date that I found myself in the dock. I admit that I took some pleasure from it, because one of the matters—

It being seven hours after the commencement of proceedings, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day], That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Dowd.]

The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 10.

Division No. 254]
[11.14 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cousins, Jim


Alexander, Douglas
Cran, James


Allan, Richard
Cranston, Ross


Atherton, Ms Candy
Crausby, David


Baker, Norman
Cummings, John


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Barnes, Harry
Davidson, Ian


Barron, Kevin
Dawson, Hilton


Bayley, Hugh
Dismore, Andrew


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Doran, Frank


Begg, Miss Anne
Dowd, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Berry, Roger
Edwards, Huw


Blackman, Liz
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gapes, Mike


Browne, Desmond
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burnett, John
Gibson, Dr Ian


Byers, Stephen
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cann, Jamie
Gorrie, Donald


Casale, Roger
Gray, James


Caton, Martin
Grieve, Dominic


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grogan, John


Chidgey, David
Gunnell, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clelland, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Colman, Tony
 Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hepburn, Stephen


Cooper, Yvette
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cotter, Brian
Hinchliffe, David






Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Olner, Bill


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Pike, Peter L


Humble, Mrs Joan
Plaskitt, James


Hutton, John
Pond, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pope, Greg


Ingram, Adam
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rendel, David


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rowlands, Ted


Keeble, Ms Sally
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Salter, Martin


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Savidge, Malcolm


Laxton, Bob
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lepper, David
Skinner, Dennis


Levitt, Tom
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Linton, Martin
Soley, Clive


Livsey, Richard
Southworth, Ms Helen


Llwyd, Elfyn
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McAllion, John
Stewart, David (Inverness)


McAvoy, Thomas
Stewart, Ian(Eccles)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Stinchcombe, Paul


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Stott, Roger


McDonagh, Siobhain
Stuart, Ms Gisela


McFall, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McGrady, Eddie
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


McGuire, Mrs Anne
(Dewsbury)


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNulty, Tony
Timms, Stephen


Mactaggart, Fiona
Touhig, Don


McWilliam, John
Trickett, Jon


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Turner, Dr Desmond(Kemptown)


Mallon, Seamus
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walter, Robert


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Watts David


Maxton, John
White, Brain


Merron, Gillian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Moore, Michael
Willis, Phil


Moran, Ms Margaret
Wills, Michael


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Woolas, Phil


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Worthington, Tony


Mudie, George
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Janet Anderson and


Norris, Dan
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.




NOES


Forsythe, Clifford
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann(Congleton)


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Paisley, Rev Ian



Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. Roy Begg And


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Mr. William Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read then Third time, and passed

Northern Ireland

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Negotiations (Referendum) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 (Cessation of Section 3) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.

Mr. Murphy: The first order provides for a referendum to be held in Northern Ireland on the outcome of the multi-party talks.
Peace in Northern Ireland has to be founded on a settlement, and this settlement is squarely based on the principle of consent. At the beginning of the talks, we made our commitment to the so-called triple lock. Consent was needed from the parties through the agreement; from the House of Commons and the House of Lords; and, of course, from the people of Northern Ireland through a vote in the referendum. It is through this triple lock that we can be sure that the agreement represents the future that everyone wants—that it is a way forward for the government of Northern Ireland that commands cross-community support.
Every home in Northern Ireland has been sent a copy of the agreement. Everyone will have the opportunity to scrutinise it. The order allows us to put a vital question to the people. Without it, the people of Northern Ireland could not make their voices heard on what was achieved by their representatives at Castle buildings. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Monday, the decisive judgment must come from the people whose daily lives will be directly affected by it.
The basis for the order was provided by section 4 of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996. The legislation determining how and when the referendum will be held—this order—is straightforward and clear. Indeed, most of it is standard material.
Article 3 of the order provides that a referendum shall be held on Friday 22 May between the hours of 7 am and 10 pm. Article 4 sets out who is entitled to vote in the election—those who have been entered on the electoral register of parliamentary electors in Northern Ireland, excluding overseas voters but including peers.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already expressed her gratitude to all those who made the agreement possible. In reaching a decision on this key issue, we believe that the most straightforward and fair method of determining the will of the people is for the people in Northern Ireland to exercise their franchise and vote in the referendum.
The second order refers to the cessation of the forum. As the House will know, the forum was set up as part of the talks process. Indeed, the life of the forum coincided with the life of the talks. If the Belfast agreement wins support in the referendum planned for 22 May, we shall have elections to a new representative body in Northern Ireland, which will, once the transitional phase is over,


at long last permit those who have been elected by the people of Northern Ireland to take those decisions that are currently taken by me, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by ministerial colleagues. I hope that, for some of those who participate in the New Northern Ireland Assembly, experience in the forum will prove to have been valuable preparation.
We might take a moment to look back on the record of the forum since it was set up in June 1996. It was established with the central objective of discussing issues relevant to the promotion of dialogue and understanding between the communities in Northern Ireland. It was unable to discharge that role fully because not all parties took part in it. However, many of the people who took part did try hard to take account of as wide a spectrum of opinion as possible on the various issues. I want to place on record my thanks to the forum's chairman, Mr. John Gorman, for the commitment he displayed in guiding discussion through some very testing debate and for his efforts to act fairly and honourably in the discharge of his duties.
I should also like to pay tribute to the chairmen of the various standing committees for serving the forum in those capacities and to the members of the Business Committee for the role they played in managing the forum's business and events.
I believe that, controversial as the forum at times has been, there have been positive aspects to its collective work and that of individual members, and that that positive work is capable of standing Northern Ireland in good stead as we move forward to the implementation of the Belfast agreement. I commend the orders to the House.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: We have always maintained that any settlement in Northern Ireland is entirely dependent on the triple lock. The first part of the triple lock was achieved on Good Friday, when a majority of the parties in both communities signed the Belfast agreement. Now it is essential that we have the second part of the triple lock, which means the people of Northern Ireland expressing their view by way of a referendum. If the outcome is positive, the third part of the triple lock—a vote in both Houses of this Parliament—will be necessary. Therefore, we have absolutely no hesitation in supporting the orders.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The House should pause for a moment before taking a decision that I think it will regret.

Mr. Frank Cook: Why?

Mr. Robinson: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. He can be sure that before I sit down, he will know why.
The Government are asking the people of Northern Ireland, who have faced a quarter of a century and more of terrorism, to watch while those who have oppressed them, those who have perpetrated violence against them, and those who have stopped them having a normal life are elevated and rewarded.
The agreement, which is to be put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum, is an agreement that puts into the very Government of Northern Ireland

representatives of the Provisional IRA's army council—Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. Under the agreement, once they are in that Government, they will hold full ministerial portfolios which will be exercised in a more wide-ranging way than is the case in the rest of the United Kingdom.
All that the Cabinet—if it can be called that—does is to work out its annual policy programme, and, within that broad policy programme, Ministers can do almost what they want. So, we shall have two Sinn Fein-IRA Ministers, in an elevated position and gentrified by the agreement, running around Northern Ireland, exercising control over the very people whom they have oppressed for a generation.

Mr. Frank Cook: Many of us can understand why the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the orders, but I personally cannot understand why he is against the people of Northern Ireland expressing an opinion.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman should have waited before intervening. I have not said that I am against the people of Northern Ireland expressing an opinion. Indeed, if he knew a bit more about the subject, he would be aware that it was my party which asked for a referendum. We want the people of Northern Ireland to have their say, but I am entitled to explain to the House what the House is asking the people of Northern Ireland to vote on. The only choice that the House is giving the people of Northern Ireland is to vote for or against the agreement—there are to be no alternatives on the ballot paper.
The first thing that the agreement will do is put into the Government IRA army council members and give them full executive authority to operate key Departments in Northern Ireland. Secondly, it gives a veto to nationalists within the assembly. I can remember campaigning with colleagues in the UUP and the then Vanguard Unionist party against the Sunningdale agreement back in the early 1970s. We were Unionists, and we saw the Sunningdale agreement as a process that led to a united Ireland.
What did the Sunningdale agreement do? It put Gerry Fitt, now Lord Fitt, in government in Northern Ireland. The people who stood shoulder to shoulder with us—people such as the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, Reginald Empey of the Ulster Unionist party and the deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist party—who opposed having Gerry Fitt in government are now saying, "Let's have Gerry Adams instead." I am not sure that the people of Northern Ireland will feel that their judgment has improved over the years.
At least the Sunningdale agreement allowed decisions to be taken by simple majority voting. Under the proposed system, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) pointed out, decisions will be taken by consensus. They require not a simple vote within the assembly, but a majority of one section of the community and at least 40 per cent. of the other. So there is a minority veto within the assembly.
The agreement sets up an all-Ireland body with full executive power and implementing bodies attached to it. They can take decisions and implement them—a process recognised by Sinn Fein-IRA as an advancement towards


its goal of a united Ireland. Will Unionists recommend that to the people of Northern Ireland? If that were not bad enough—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Conversations are breaking out generally throughout the Chamber. I would be grateful if hon. Members would listen to the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House.

Mr. Robinson: That is the very last thing that hon. Members want to do. To listen might lead to their being convinced and that might cause them considerable problems with their Whips, so they close their ears rather than hear the truth.
Apart from the structural issues contained within the agreement and the referendum, there is a prospect that, within two years, the worst criminals from both sections of the community will be released onto the streets. No one will remain in gaol if he belongs to a pro-agreement paramilitary organisation. The judge's recommendation might have been that such a criminal should be locked up for 35 years or should never see daylight again, but in two years' time he will be walking down the street again. Walking down the same street, perhaps in the other direction, might be a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—the very man who put him in gaol—and he would laugh at him.
Although the agreement does not require paramilitary organisations to decommission, there are clear indications that the RUC will be required to disarm. Indeed, an international body of so-called experts is to be established to examine the future of the RUC, with the specific remit to consider a new policing structure and a new police service for Northern Ireland that has to be satisfactory to both sections of the community.
We know the view of the SDLP in respect of a new police service. They want a root and branch change. Sinn Fein goes a step further. It wants a completely new police service and has indicated that it would like a two-tier police service with a community input. That is a clear sign that the RUC will effectively be destroyed.
All the issues show that the winners in the process are the pan-nationalist front. As the SDLP said earlier this evening, it has been pushing for this agenda for 25 years and now it has it. The SDLP has admitted that it is a nationalist agenda—one which it has sought for 25 years. Is not it disgraceful that it should achieve its goal because Unionists signed up to it? I cannot understand how those who opposed Sunningdale and the Anglo-Irish Agreement can support something that is worse—not for nationalists, but for Unionists.

Mr. Brian White: What is the hon. Gentleman's alternative?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman asks me what my alternative is—he has clearly not read Democratic Unionist party documents, which have offered alternative after alternative. If he wants to offer me an alternative, I will take what Scotland has—I should be happy for Northern Ireland to have the same structures that the House was content to give to Scotland. Scotland was not asked to give away its sovereignty and join some foreign country, so why should that be required of us?
Many alternatives would be satisfactory to the Unionist community. Democracy would be a nice alternative—democratic rule instead of Dublin rule. Indeed, I would rather have direct rule than Dublin rule. The Unionist community has plenty of alternatives, but we shall never accept a process that leads inevitably to a united Ireland.
I hope that, on 22 May, the people of Northern Ireland will not be sold the lie that the agreement will produce peace. It will not produce peace. It rewards terrorism. It says to the men of violence, "Your bombing and shooting have succeeded in getting you a place, not only at the negotiating table, but in government. Your shooting and bombing have succeeded in opening the prisons." The agreement is a charter for more terrorism. Terrorists learn that, if their terrorism brings success, more terrorism will lead to greater success. The agreement will not wipe away violence. The one certainty is that the Provisional IRA will pocket every concession that it is given and start to push for more.
The IRA sees the agreement as a transitional phase towards its goal, which it will not give up. Northern Ireland has been put in transit from its position in the United Kingdom; it has been moved into a different axis, which points it to the Republic of Ireland. Its day-to-day political life has to be in tandem with the Irish Republic, and we are less and less to look to the east-west axis.
Many hon. Members may think that that is good—from a nationalist point of view, they are entitled to believe that it is good. However, I will not allow the Unionist community in Northern Ireland to believe that the Union is more secure today than it was when the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) sat down at the table.
How can the Union be more secure with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness in government, with a nationalist veto in an assembly and with an all-Ireland body with full executive powers? How can the Union be more secure when terrorists are not required to decommission weapons, when our police force is to be destroyed and when the gates of the prisons are to be swung open so that terrorists can walk free?
I shall be asking people to vote no when they have the opportunity on 22 May, and I hope that the Government recognise that they need more than 50 per cent. plus one to support the agreement. By its nature, the agreement requires consensus. To give a veto to nationalists, the Government have, inadvertently but necessarily, given a veto to Unionists, as nothing can go through the assembly without the support of a majority of the Unionist community as well. Because a majority of nationalists and Unionists is required, the Government need more than 70 per cent. of the electorate to vote in favour of the agreement.
I have fought many elections—something like 26—and have a fair idea of the way the political wind blows in Northern Ireland.
If anyone believes the opinion polls that are tampered with and doctored by the Northern Ireland Office, they will have a big surprise. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh: perhaps they have not seen the document that was leaked from the Northern Ireland Office—it was written by Tom Kelly, previously of the BBC and now the director of communications in the Northern Ireland Office—expressly stating how the people of Northern Ireland were to be deceived about opinion polls.
The fact came out that the Government intended to line up all the movers and shakers, including Archbishop Eames, and to time all the press statements to come out one after the other to get the people of Northern Ireland to believe that there was a real bandwagon going for the agreement. It was all laid out in the leaked document, which mentioned how the opinion polls were to be made to bolster the Government's position.
I speak to people and get their opinions. Outside the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party, I am still looking for the first Unionist who supports the agreement. I have been in the streets and in my advice centres, which I attend much more often than do any Labour Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] Oh, yes. I wonder how many days a week you sit in your advice centres and how many appointments you take every—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language, and I would be grateful if he would direct his remarks towards the draft orders.

Mr. Robinson: I am content to address the referendum issue, and the opinions of the people must be central to what the referendum is about. I am making it very clear that, although the Northern Ireland Office and its Ministers may attempt, as the leaked document said, to give the impression that the agreement has overwhelming support in Northern Ireland, a majority of the Unionist people will not vote yes to the agreement. If hon. Members do not believe it now, they may be prepared to change their minds after 22 May.
What are the circumstances for assistance to the two campaigns in the referendum? The Republic of Ireland Government funds the two campaigns equally. They do not count the number of parties in either section and give an allocation on that basis. The two camps get similar funding. That, I understand, is not the Government's intention. They intend to help the yes campaign on a 4:1 basis. Will the Minister make it clear that he will fund the two campaigns equally?
I join the Minister in expressing appreciation, both personally and on behalf of my party, to the chairman of the forum, John Gorman. He is in every sense of the word a gentleman. Anyone who chairs a political forum with elected representatives from Northern Ireland has a difficult task. Politicians from Northern Ireland can be very passionate about their politics. He has had a major task to perform, but he has done it without causing offence to any member of the forum, and he walks out of it with the respect of all the members. I am not sure that many others could have attained that.
John Gorman has done an excellent job, and so has the forum. It is often derided, especially by those who would not play a full part in it, but every week committees considered every aspect of government and produced reports that went to Ministers. Even this Friday, another Minister will come to the forum to speak to members and answer their questions. It has been a worthwhile exercise. I happen to believe in devolution. I would love to have seen a real devolved Government in Northern Ireland.
Regrettably, this agreement more than anything else has shattered that dream because it makes it clear that there is a price for devolution and it is that we have to link ourselves up to an all-Ireland process at the same time.

As far as I am concerned, that is a price which is too high to pay. Therefore, the only alternative for the people of Northern Ireland is to have a completely United Kingdom settlement. It is not possible for the people of Northern Ireland to have devolution without its being tied into a united Ireland process.
Therefore, the forum has been a useful exercise. Regrettably, it will never have any powers and I do not believe that any real democratic assembly will ever replace it.

Mr. William Thompson: We have come to the end of this debate, and it is time to go forward to the country to fight in the referendum and subsequently in the election for the assembly.
At the referendum, the people of Northern Ireland will be faced with two choices, whether to vote yes for the agreement or no. All the media will be for a yes, as will many of the great and good and also several Church leaders, because many believe that they should always follow the establishment, but there will be others, and I shall be one of them, who will unashamedly ask the people to vote no. If they vote yes, they will be voting to be second-class citizens within the United Kingdom. If they vote yes and accept the agreement, they will be accepting that this Parliament no longer wants them and that, in reality, it wishes to put them into a united Ireland.
If people vote yes in the referendum, they will be voting that those who have murdered their kinsmen and done the most foul deeds be released on to the streets. If they vote yes, they will be voting that the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which is the finest police force in the world, should be changed out of all recognition and be that great body no more. That is what will happen if they vote yes.
There are those who will say, "If you vote no, you're against peace," and, "If you vote no, the agreement will be imposed on you anyway." I say to them: if the British Government want to impose something on Northern Ireland against the wishes of the Northern Ireland people, let them do so, but we do not have to agree with it or be part of it.
Again, there are those who will say, "If you vote no, what is the alternative?" For the Ulster people, the alternative is to demand, as equal citizens of the United Kingdom, that they be treated the same—equally—and have parity with every other part of the United Kingdom.
The people of Northern Ireland, especially the Unionist people, demand no advantage. They do not demand anything greater than anyone else. All we demand is that we are treated as equal citizens within this kingdom and that the same rules and system of government apply in Northern Ireland as in every other part of the United Kingdom.
For far too long, we have been bedevilled by the idea that there are two, diverse, opposite communities in Northern Ireland—that every Roman Catholic is a nationalist and every Protestant a Unionist. The reality is different: more than 70 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland are quite happy to live in the United Kingdom, abide by its laws and accept the police force of Northern Ireland. Only a small minority bent on violence is determined to split the people of Northern Ireland and eventually to take us out of the United Kingdom. It is


only by voting no that the people of Northern Ireland can insist that they will not be second-class citizens, that they will not go into a united Ireland and that they wish to be equal to every other citizen of the United Kingdom.
Some Scottish Members have spoken tonight. You are getting a Parliament in Scotland. You would not accept in Scotland what you say we have to accept in Northern Ireland. You would not accept a power-sharing Executive.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I have just reminded another hon. Member, first to use the correct parliamentary language, and, secondly, to address the draft orders?

Mr. Thompson: I have almost finished. Hon. Members from Scotland and Wales are trying to force on Northern Ireland something that they would not have for themselves. That is rank hypocrisy.

Mr. Phil Willis: What a sad litany we heard from the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson). They claim to be democrats, but seem to be frightened of the democratic process. That is the basic issue. They say that they regret asking the people whether they want lasting peace, a say in their future or to live in normality like the rest of the people of the United Kingdom. Regrets? We have no regrets. The people of Northern Ireland should have the chance, and on 22 May we hope that they will have it, to put aside those siren voices and vote yes overwhelmingly. We support the orders.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is amusing to hear the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). His sister party cannot even get people elected to this House, yet he tells us what the people of Northern Ireland think. How many times has Lord Alderdice fought Belfast, East and how many thumpings has my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) given him? The deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats' sister party could not even elected to the forum: he had to be a top-up candidate.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East spoke, people laughed about the document that I have here. That is why I have intervened. The document was approved by the Secretary of State and was drawn up by a fellow called Kelly, who has his own interests. He is a civil servant, but he has large interests in advertising and public relations firms. He says that advertising on its own will not convince the public to vote yes in the referendum, but, as part of an integrated campaign, it could play a crucial role in alerting the public to precisely what is at stake.
I notice from the document that has been given to us that the Government are going to spend £3 million on this election. What is that for? The document says that the

cost of the election is not expected to exceed £3 million. Three million pounds is to be spent in the south of Ireland, but there is a difficulty because there the money must be halved: £1.5 million has to be set aside for the no campaign and £1.5 million for the yes campaign. That is not so in Northern Ireland.
I am leader of the second largest party in the forum. Hon. Members have spoken of the Democratic Unionist party as a rump party, like the Progressive Unionist or Ulster Democratic parties. The official Unionists have 30 members, my party has 24 members, the SDLP 21 and I think that Sinn Fein has 17. So here we have parties entering into the process. Can the Minister tell us tonight what he is going to do about the matters that I mentioned? Where is the £3 million to be spent? Of course, Mr. Kelly says that he has got a man closely associated with him personally. The document says that he has commissioned McCann Erickson to have both quantitative and qualitative research carried out without its being seen to be Government-inspired. This is the transparency of new Labour. Oh yes, whether we are doing any advertising or not.
We have a great advertisement in our papers saying, "The Choice is Yours". There is no signature on it. When we took the advertising and turned it round, an action was brought against us for copyright and we found out who was behind it. It was Kelly—he was doing it. Three million pounds.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, "We want to have a referendum." It was my party which fought for a referendum. My party disagreed with the official Unionist party on that very issue. I believe that we should have a referendum, but I want to say to the Government that they should be prepared to play on a level playing field and say, "All right, let the people of Ulster speak. We shall divide the money." I do not mind if no money comes from the Government.
The other day there was an £8,000 advertisement in the paper. Who was it from? There is not a politician in this House who knows. I have my ear fairly well to the ground and I do not know. I have questioned many and they do not know. It was from the silent majority. What was its heading? It was, "The agreement is suicidal to Ulster". It shocked Northern Ireland. Mr. Kelly had the rickets when he saw it. The Government have now called in a Mr. Tony McCusker to co-ordinate a database that will pick out key movers and shakers from all sections of the community. The spin doctors are at work all right. They are doing a good job.
Unfortunately, the name was let out—none other than the Archbishop of Armagh. The poor archbishop nearly had the rickets too because his telephone started to ring. People from the Church of Ireland called to say, "We do not like archbishops who are in politics. Politics is a dirty game and you should not be in it." Others said, "And you are going to try and sell us out in Northern Ireland." The poor archbishop was very angry and the Secretary of State had to apologise, and one apology was not enough. He had to give a further apology. One by one, the names of the shakers are coming out and people are now saying, "We do not want to be identified with this."
The Government should not think that the Northern Ireland people are stupid and that they are going to listen to people just because the Government employ them.


Northern Ireland is a very small place; we know everything about everybody and everybody knows everything about us. So let me say to the House tonight that this is not the way to conduct politics. Let the people of Northern Ireland have their say, but let it be on a level playing field. I know what is happening. I know some of the dirty tricks played in the past by Departments and Governments on this side of the water. I know all about it and let me tell the House: truth will out.
I am looking forward to 22 May, but I have not heard the Government make any comment on what I said in the other debate, or on what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East said about the consensus. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, "We shall certainly need well over the 70 per cent. mark," but he has now reduced that figure to over the 60 per cent. mark, and soon it will be down to just over the 50 per cent. mark. Let me tell the House that to have a clear statement that the majority of both nationalists and Unionists agree, the yes vote must be 70 per cent. We shall see.
Let the election take place, but let it take place in fairness and not with the taking of taxpayers' money and trying to make people believe as the Government believe, outlined in this document. They do not have to live there; they do not have to follow the coffins; they do not have to suffer. This past week, I have had with me a lady who lost her husband in a brutal attack by an IRA man. She said to me, "I am afraid that I'll not even have the courage to go out of my home when the man is released who killed my husband." What do we say to people like her—that we are sensitive to her troubles, but we have to let such men out?
The House should allow the election to take place in an honourable and decent manner, not with the sort of thing outlined in this document and the misuse of £3 million. I want to know what the £3 million is for.

Mr. Paul Murphy: It is easy to attack civil servants, who cannot answer back. It is important to realise that had the party of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) taken part in the agreement, he might well have been able to influence the matters that he does not appear to like. It is also important to understand that nearly 1 million people are entitled to vote in Northern Ireland, so the expenditure to which the hon. Gentleman refers is hardly elaborate. When it is borne in mind that the parties that were members of the talks process represent 80 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland, it seems fair that they should have 80 per cent. of the expenditure for leaflet distribution—four to one, because they were in the talks and because they represent 80 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for North Antrim accused me of being wrong earlier, but he was wrong about several matters. He was wrong about decommissioning: the agreement makes it absolutely clear that decommissioning is to happen within two years. He was wrong about the RUC and wrong about how the assembly works—in fact, he is generally wrong and one of the reasons he is wrong is that he did not stay in the talks and argue his corner. The only point on which I do agree with him is that we should let the people decide. Let us hope that, on 22 May, they give the settlement and the agreement a resounding yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved

That the draft Northern Ireland Negotiations (Referendum) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.

Resolved,

That the draft Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 (Cessation of Section 3) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Secondary Schools (North Wiltshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. James Gray: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the burning issues relating to secondary education in my constituency and to alert the Minister to a crisis that may occur soon unless urgent action is taken.
Despite its image, my constituency is not primarily a rural area. More than half of my constituents live in the four towns of Malmesbury, Wootton Bassett, Corsham and Chippenham. Those are fast-progressing, fast-expanding towns—more akin to the other towns along the M4 corridor than are the more rural parts of north Wiltshire. That can be seen in the growth of the primary schools. In Chippenham alone, three new primary schools have been opened in the past eight years, and soon another will need to be opened to cater for the very many children in the town.
The primary school sector needs significant new investment, but, unquestionably, the area where investment is really needed in north Wiltshire is secondary schools, which have not kept pace with the rapid population growth in the area. That failure to keep pace prompted my request for this Adjournment debate.
Of the three local education authority secondary schools, only Corsham is roughly the size that it should be, although even there it is projected that, by the year 2000, there will be a shortfall of about 80 places, growing thereafter until, by 2003, we shall have a shortage of a couple of hundred in Corsham. However, it is in the other three towns—Chippenham, Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett—that especially urgent action is needed if we are to avoid a crisis of under-provision in the area.
The trouble appears to be that Wiltshire's strategic education planning has never addressed projected growth in student numbers until after the pupils are in place. The reason given by the local education authority for that failure to plan strategically is that it is central Government's fault. The director of education says:
Ideally extra places would be provided when a shortfall is predicted, not when it becomes actual. Funding arrangements by Central Government do not allow for this. They allow for demand a maximum of three years hence to be satisfied, but during that period demand in an area such as North Wiltshire will be growing.
That, of course, is true. The population in the area is growing so fast that allowing the local authority to plan only three years ahead is inadequate. The Minister might like to ponder whether "predict and provide" may have a useful role to play in a place such as north Wiltshire, where predictions are exceptionally clear.
It may be useful if I briefly lay out the problem in each of the three main towns, and then suggest a few possible solutions to those problems.
It is predicted that, in Chippenham, there will be a shortfall in secondary school places of some 130 by the year 2000, of some 360 by 2001, and of an increasing number thereafter. There are two absolutely excellent grant-maintained secondary schools in Chippenham—the Sheldon school and Hardenhuish school, both of which are already full to capacity. The head and chairman of governors are very worried that they may have to put up

with many mobile classrooms from the local authority between the year 2000 and 2001, if plans to build a third school in Chippenham are not implemented.
The curious thing about mobile classrooms is that they appear to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once one has a mobile classroom on one's site, it seems to remain for ever and become a permanent classroom—and, curiously, the number of children seems to expand to fill the mobile classrooms available. Hardly surprisingly, therefore, Hardenhuish and Sheldon are very reluctant to have mobile classrooms on their sites.
In any case, both those secondary schools are at the north of the town, and most of the expansion is in the Pewsham estate, in the south of the town, which is where the local authority had been planning the third secondary school. The people of Chippenham rejoiced to hear local authority plans to open a 450-place secondary school in September 2000. That was promised by the local authority in November and December 1997—not least at a public meeting in Chippenham, which I attended.
However, by about Christmas time, the Lib-Lab pact that currently runs Wiltshire county council suddenly became enamoured of the Thatcherite principles behind the public-private partnership initiative—or the private finance initiative, as I still, in my old-fashioned way, tend to think of it. Naturally, we were delighted that they were so pleased to take up that Thatcherite principle. We were also pleased to hear that, last week, the Government announced £100,000 to help the council with that PPP bid.
I was glad that the consultants appointed by the county council advised that using the PPP for the new school for Chippenham was perfectly possible, but I was slightly astonished to hear from the county council, when I met some councillors last week, that they advised that such a PPP project was likely to provide a higher quality of school than traditional funding methods would.
I find it hard to imagine a Labour Government being content that private funding for a state school would provide a higher-quality school than a state-funded project. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us that, if a school were to be built using traditional funding methods, the quality of the school would be as high as it would be if private funding were used.
The county also concluded that the capital works needed in the other two towns, Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett—about which I shall say more in a moment—were more likely to attract a suitable PPP partner if they were bundled up with Chippenham. The upshot of that decision was the announcement last week or the week before that the much-needed new school for Chippenham would not be ready in September 2000, and that 2001 was the earliest date at which the PPP package could be in place.
Perhaps the Minister will consider whether the PPP package could be hastened, so that the school can open by September 2000. If not, some 130 pupils will be bussed around Wiltshire in the interim year. They may go to Corsham—although the county seems to have ignored the fact that its school will be full by 2000—or perhaps to Caine, some five or 10 miles away from Chippenham. The county might even close a local special school, Allington—which has a current roll of only 40 or so boys—and put the 130 school-less secondary children there.
It is hardly surprising that the rejoicing about the school's opening in September 2000 has rapidly turned to sincere anger on the part of parents in Chippenham. They have brought significant pressure to bear on me, and I am pleased to raise the matter with the Minister in this Adjournment debate. It is unacceptable in this great modern age—the education, education, education age—to be bussing children from a progressive town such as Chippenham to neighbouring market towns, or putting them up temporarily in a disused special school.
The county has a site available—despite the fact that two "fat boy" bombs were discovered on it just before Christmas. They have been cleared successfully and the site is now available for the school. Until Christmas, the county was confident that traditional methods of finance were in place to pay for the school by 2000. It should be possible to find a way of ensuring that the school opens by then.
The only strong argument in favour of the PPP bid is that the other two portions of it, Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett, may stand a better chance of being brought forward in time. Their need is very great—although perhaps not quite so urgent as that of Chippenham. The Malmesbury school is presently located on two sites situated a mile or two apart. The lower school is found on the Filands site, and the upper school is situated on the Corngastons site. That is a wholly unacceptable situation these days, which cannot possibly be cost effective.
There is an overwhelming argument in favour of bringing the school together, probably on the Corngastons site—there have been representations recently that perhaps Filands would be better, but that matter will be decided in due course—and selling the other site for housing, which north Wiltshire badly needs. However, I plead that the land not be sold for the construction of an out-of-town shopping centre of any kind, which would ruin the vibrant high street in Malmesbury. If the school is located on one site and the other site is sold for housing, the project should be more or less self-financing.
Wootton Bassett is also convincing proof of the LEA's lack of strategic planning for school numbers. Bassett is close to Swindon, and has grown exponentially in recent years. It already has 22 mobile classrooms, many of which are more than 20 years old. I have visited them, and many are falling to pieces. There are currently 1,370 pupils at the school, of whom only 1,000 are in permanent classrooms. The county is projecting a further shortfall of 40 places by 2000 and 130 by 2003. Thereafter, it is predicting that the school will grow to house 1,800 children on that one site. Some urgent capital action is definitely needed to ensure that they can be housed appropriately.
The picture that I have painted depicts an imminent crisis in Chippenham—with secondary children being bussed around—and, although the problems in Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett are less acute, they are none the less just as pressing in reality. It seems to me to be wrong to lump the third school in Chippenham with the projects at Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett. The need in Chippenham is more urgent.
I suggest to the Minister and to Wiltshire county council education authority that the Chippenham school should proceed with all due dispatch using traditional funding methods, and that they should stick to their publicly expressed intention to complete the school by

September 2000. The funding of the project may require assistance from central Government, and I hope that the Minister will be able to comment—either tonight or during further discussions between his officials and the county, which I will happily help to arrange or participate in if that would be useful—on the likelihood of that assistance being forthcoming.
I understand that the capital borrowing permission for 1998–99 was in place last December, but that a surprise cut of 30 per cent. by the Government in 1997–98 levels was a contributory factor in the LEA's decision to delay the project and to fund it as a PPP. Will the Minister please consider reinstating the 30 per cent. that the Government cut from the basic needs borrowing permission, so that the project may proceed to the original time scale?
Will the Minister further confirm that there need be no lowering of standards among buildings financed by the traditional method, compared with those financed by the PPP?
If the third school in Chippenham goes ahead at an early date using traditional funding methods, that would leave the Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett part of the PPP bid, which would still probably amount to some £10 million-surely large enough to attract suitable private funding.
If that were too small on its own, other urgent projects in the primary school sector, such as the Kings Lodge and Charter primary schools in Chippenham, perhaps the Malmesbury primary school, the Lydiard Millicent primary school which is on a site split by a road, or the Ashton Keynes primary school, where two thirds of the children are in mobiles, could be added to it. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the likelihood of success of such a mixed secondary-primary PPP bid, which I believe would be a first in the nation.
The county is grateful for the £900,000 help for Wiltshire under the new deal announced last week. Crudwell and Christian Malford primary schools will benefit from it. However, the sum is a drop in the ocean compared with the £3 million that the county demanded, and is £100,000 less than it achieved last year. The new deal is not a particularly great help for the county.
I am concerned that the PPP bid may not succeed, however it is configured. The Minister may want to give some thought to that, and tell us the likelihood of traditional finance being available, especially for the Chippenham school but also for the other two, if we are unable to find a PPP partner.
It would not be possible to leave a debate on education in north Wiltshire without referring to this year's settlement. The Minister will not be surprised if I do so. No doubt I have that in common with most of the local authority representatives who have spoken to him over the past few months.
In Wiltshire, school budgets have been cut by 2 per cent. in real terms. An increase of 0.8 per cent. was needed to pay for the full-year effect of the 1997–98 pay award, and a further 2.6 per cent. to meet the 1998–99 pay awards and inflation. A total cash increase of 3.4 per cent. was required. Only 1.4 per cent. was forthcoming, which means real and damaging cuts in the standard of education offered in Wiltshire.
Many schools are operating a deficit budget already. There will be redundancies in the county. IT will be curtailed. There is no repairs or decoration budget at all.


Money for books and equipment is frozen or falling. The Minister constantly speaks of a 5.2 per cent. increase for Wiltshire, but that is a wholly misleading use of statistics. The reality is a cash cut, as I have described.
North Wiltshire is a prosperous and fast expanding area. I am not alone in the county in sensing a looming crisis in the provision of secondary education in the area. I hope that the Minister, together with Wiltshire county council, will take urgent action after this evening's debate avoid such a crisis.

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on securing this debate to consider the situation affecting schools in his constituency. He has drawn to the attention of the House his concerns about the potential difficulties facing a new secondary school in the southern part of Chippenham and raised issues related to revenue funding and the 5.2 per cent. increase that the Government have made available to schools in Wiltshire for the current financial year.
I shall comment briefly on the revenue settlement. The 5.2 per cent. is for the first time a real-terms increase that Wiltshire county council has received. An Adjournment debate at this time of the evening is not a good time to make party-political points, but I must say that the Government have done their part by providing that real-terms increase. If the hon. Gentleman and schools in Wiltshire are concerned that the money has not found its way into schools, it is right that the issue should be taken up with the county council. If the county council reconsiders its decisions in the next few weeks, it may feel able to allocate more funding to schools. Certainly the Government have made the money available, and it is our intention that it should find its way into schools in Wiltshire generally, and in north Wiltshire in particular—the schools represented by the hon. Gentleman.
The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's speech concerned the capital situation; that is the issue which I shall take up in particular. Before I do, I wish to compliment the schools in north Wiltshire on the good standards that they are already achieving. One of the benefits of a debate of this sort is that it provides a Minister with an opportunity to examine in some detail the schools in a certain area. That has been possible given the briefing that I have received from my officials. Over the past few days, I have had the opportunity to note the relative performance of schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
As the Minister for School Standards, it is appropriate for me to compliment the majority of schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which are doing well and providing the standards that the Government want. I pass on my congratulations and best wishes to head teachers, governors and parents with pupils attending the schools, given the excellent work that is clearly being done.
The hon. Gentleman raised particular concerns about the need for a new secondary school in Chippenham and the need for changes in both Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett. I shall refer to those three proposals.
I need to say clearly that any proposal for a new secondary school in Chippenham will have to come to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for approval.

There is a statutory process that has to be followed. Nothing that I say this evening in any way prejudges or prejudices the decision that will eventually be taken by the Secretary of State if an application is made for a new secondary school in Chippenham. The application will require the approval of the Secretary of State, and if objections are made during the relevant two-month period, it will be for my right hon. Friend to come to a determination one way or the other. It would be wholly inappropriate to prejudge the situation before the Secretary of State has had the opportunity to consider any objections. There may be no objections, but if there are my right hon. Friend will need to consider them in an unbiased way.
I need to make clear that when the Government consider the needs of a growing population, that is reflected in our capital allocation process. We do not consider the factor in terms of what is happening now; the Government plan ahead, and effectively we have a four-year horizon, during which we shall consider the need for new places in an area. We have done that in respect of Wiltshire.
We have considered growth, as outlined by the hon. Gentleman. It is clear that this is a part of the country where, over the next few years, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined, there will be population growth and an increase in pupil numbers. We need to plan ahead to ensure that the potential difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred do not occur. That is exactly what the Government intend to do.
We do not intend to stand to one side and watch a crisis develop in the Chippenham area where at the beginning of the new century children will have to be bussed to secondary schools. We must consider carefully the steps that can be taken now and in the near future to ensure that that does not happen.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about temporary accommodation. He is absolutely right. Temporary accommodation often becomes permanent. Those of us who visit schools, either in our constituencies or in other parts of the country, are well aware of temporary buildings that remain in place after many years—indeed, many decades—of use.
I was particularly pleased when it came to round two of our new deal for schools. We were able to make some capital allocations to ensure that temporary accommodation would be replaced by high-quality alternative accommodation. We shall continue to pursue that policy as we enter subsequent rounds of the new deal for schools. Over the life of this Parliament, about £2 billion extra will be used to improve school building stock.
We give local education authorities the flexibility to decide exactly how to allocate our annual capital guidelines. We do not tie the guidelines to specific school projects, although when an LEA applies for funding we expect it to tell the Department exactly how it will make best use of the money. It is important for local democracy to allow LEAs the freedom to determine their own priorities, and we do that within the annual capital guidelines. We have adopted a different approach in the new deal, in that we fund specific school project applications by LEAs.
A specific concern about Chippenham's proposed third secondary school close to the Pewsham estate relates to the two "fat boy" bombs that were discovered just before


Christmas. People were worried that the cost of removing the bombs would have to be met from the original pathfinder budget for the new school.
I am sure that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire will welcome the fact that my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have told Wiltshire that it will consider meeting the cost of disposing of the bombs through the Bellwin scheme, which was introduced many years ago by Lord Bellwin to deal with emergencies affecting local authority expenditure. My colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will carefully consider the adoption of an equivalent to the Bellwin scheme to cover the additional costs arising from the finding of those two unexploded bombs.
The main issue raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire is the possible delay on the Chippenham school as a result of its becoming part of a public-private partnership. I fully understand his concerns. The Government's desire to promote such partnerships, to which we are committed as an alternative source of funding for our schools stock, should not in any way delay Chippenham's third secondary school. We appreciate the need for the school and we want to ensure that nothing delays its development if it is approved by the Secretary of State.
We note Wiltshire's recent decision to bundle the Chippenham secondary school with proposals affecting Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's concerns. He correctly said that we have reserved £100,000 to help Wiltshire develop the project under the second round of the new deal initiative.
Many local education authorities do not have the in-house expertise to pursue public-private partnerships, and that is one of the reasons for the setting up in my Department of the schools private finance team. It consists of a group of people with expertise in private finance, and I am more than willing to offer that expertise to Wiltshire to support and assist the county in developing a new private-public partnership.
Because time is of the essence, my team will contact Wiltshire before the end of this week to arrange a meeting, within days rather than weeks, to discuss with the county council how urgent progress can be made in developing the public-private partnership arrangements to cover Chippenham, Malmesbury and Wootton Bassett.

I believe that progress can be made and that this project can become an exciting example of the public-private partnership approach that we want to be developed.
The hon. Gentleman compared the quality of buildings funded under the traditional annual capital guidelines with those funded through public-private partnerships. I must make it clear that, whatever the source of funding, the Government want high-quality school buildings. We have been concerned about the quality of school buildings and we need to take steps to ensure that when we spend public money we get value for the taxpayer. We are looking critically at the way in which local education authorities spend the capital that is given to them by central Government. All too often—perhaps due to lack of experience—they do not secure value for money. Any pound that is mis-spent or spent inefficiently is a pound less for raising standards in our schools.
The Government have a good deal of sympathy for the case made by the hon. Gentleman. We are keen to develop public-private partnerships and we support Wiltshire's public-private proposals, which is why we have reserved £100,000 to help fund the development costs of the project. We commend Wiltshire's enterprise and want to give all possible assistance to ensure that the project is successfully concluded. I am, therefore, more than willing to offer the support and guidance of the Department's private finance team to help Wiltshire achieve its objectives.
Our endeavours to promote public-private partnerships must not be at the expense of the third secondary school in Chippenham. It would clearly be unacceptable to delay that school by a year. We shall give Wiltshire all the support that we can to develop that public-private partnership quickly, but we are not wedded to dogma, so if insufficient progress is made within the timetable we shall consider alternative proposals. We shall need to look into traditional methods of funding to ensure that the school in Chippenham opens in September 2000.
The Government intend to discharge their responsibilities to the children of north Wiltshire, to raise standards and to provide high-quality education. We want to do that for the children in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and for children across the country. I hope that, in responding positively to the debate, I have been able to show the Government's commitment to providing high standards and a good quality of education for all our children.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.